Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
Nissan Motors, Corporate Office and Ors. - Appellant
Versus
S. Giri Prasad - Respondent
Crl. O.P. No. 20088 of 2013, Crl. M.P. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2011
Decided On : 13-09-2019
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 499 & 500 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 482 - Automobile Manufacturing Company – quash - case is that the Respondent a Advocate at Madras High Court and hails from the Advocates family - Petitioners are Managing Director and Manager-Legal of the 1st Petitioners Company Respondents wife bought a new Nissan Sunny Car in the 1st Petitioners Company in her name and registered with number - Respondent left said Car Petitioners Authorized Dealer Cars for free service as well as for change of defective left alloy wheel - After delay seven days on Respondent was called to take vehicle as service was done - When Respondent insisted for Service record Petitioner admitted that Service record is not available with vehicle - Thereafter Respondent took vehicle without Complaints being attended by Petitioner-Service Centre - Dissatisfied with Petitioner-Company is not rendering prompt service Respondent asserted and expressed his consumer rights before District Consumer Forum (South) Chennai –Held, Company or an Association of persons liable for prosecution for offences of which one of essential ingredients - In this situation and in view of aforesaid decision of Apex Court it is apparent that if statute defining offence makes or particular state of mind essential ingredients of such offence a Company or an Association of person cannot be prosecuted for such offences though Officers or Directors responsible for Management of affairs such Company may be liable for prosecution Order of Magistrate summoning Accused must reflect that has applied his mind case and the law application thereto - He has to examine nature of allegations made in Compliant and evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for Complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to Accused - It not that Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of Accused must prove that Accused has made any imputation concerning any person intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm reputation of such person - In this case Petitioners have not made any such imputation Court in several cases that summoning of an Accused in Criminal case is a serious matter and Summoning Order must reflect about application of mind of case and the law applicable thereto - In this case Metropolitan Magistrate did not even record to what are materials perused upon which cognizance has been taken - Strangely Magistrate has simply ordered to issue Summons to Accused – Petition allowedIndian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 499 & 500 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 482 - Automobile Manufacturing Company – quash - case is that the Respondent a Advocate at Madras High Court and hails from the Advocates family - Petitioners are Managing Director and Manager-Legal of the 1st Petitioners Company Respondents wife bought a new Nissan Sunny Car in the 1st Petitioners Company in her name and registered with number - Respondent left said Car Petitioners Authorized Dealer Cars for free service as well as for change of defective left alloy wheel - After delay seven days on Respondent was called to take vehicle as service was done - When Respondent insisted for Service record Petitioner admitted that Service record is not available with vehicle - Thereafter Respondent took vehicle without Complaints being attended by Petitioner-Service Centre - Dissatisfied with Petitioner-Company is not rendering prompt service Respondent asserted and expressed his consumer rights before District Consumer Forum (South) Chennai –Held, Company or an Association of persons liable for prosecution for offences of which one of essential ingredients - In this situation and in view of aforesaid decision of Apex Court it is apparent that if statute defining offence makes or particular state of mind essential ingredients of such offence a Company or an Association of person cannot be prosecuted for such offences though Officers or Directors responsible for Management of affairs such Company may be liable for prosecution Order of Magistrate summoning Accused must reflect that has applied his mind case and the law application thereto - He has to examine nature of allegations made in Compliant and evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for Complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to Accused - It not that Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of Accused must prove that Accused has made any imputation concerning any person intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm reputation of such person - In this case Petitioners have not made any such imputation Court in several cases that summoning of an Accused in Criminal case is a serious matter and Summoning Order must reflect about application of mind of case and the law applicable thereto - In this case Metropolitan Magistrate did not even record to what are materials perused upon which cognizance has been taken - Strangely Magistrate has simply ordered to issue Summons to Accused – Petition allowed
JUDGMENT :
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the Private Complaint in C.C. No. 3704 of 2013 for the offence under Sections 499 & 500 of IPC, pending on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai.
2. The gist of the case is that the Respondent is a Practising Advocate at Madras High Court and hails from the Advocates family. The 2nd & 3rd Petitioners are the Managing Director and Manager-Legal of the 1st Petitioner's Company. The Respondent's wife bought a new Nissan Sunny Car in the 1st Petitioner's Company in her name and registered with number TN-01-5700. The Respondent left the said Car to the 1st Petitioner's Authorized Dealer M/s. Jain Jubilant Cars (P) Ltd. for free service as well as for the change of defective left alloy wheel. After the delay of seven days, on 6.10.2012, the Respondent was called to take the vehicle as the service was done. When the Respondent insisted for the Service record, the 1st Petitioner admitted that the Service record is not available with the vehicle. Thereafter, the Respondent took the vehicle without the Complaints being attended by the 1st Petitioner-Service Centre. Dissatisfied with the 1st Petitioner-Company is not rendering prompt service, the Respondent asserted and expressed his consumer rights before the District Consumer Redressal Forum (South), Chennai.
3. When the Respondent demanded Compensation for the deficiency of service, AGM sent an e-Mail agreeing to pay Compensation within a couple of days. Though the Compensation was not paid, the Spare Part charges were collected for defective parts of the Car. Hence, the Respondent's wife filed a Complaint before the District Consumer Redressal Forum (South), Chennai in C.C. No. 301 of 2012 against the Petitioners.
4. The 1st Petitioner's Company filed Reply Statement in the Consumer Complaint filed by the Respondent's wife before the District Consumer Redressal Forum (South), Chennai, in which it is stated that the Respondent was under the influence of Alcohol, it was difficult for the Service personal to control him and informed him that they would revert him with AGM. For the imputation made in the above Reply Statement, Notice was sent to the 2nd & 3rd Petitioner on 18.5.2013. On receipt of the same, a Reply was sent on 14.6.2013 as if the contents of the Reply Statement contains actual events, witnessed by the technicians and Workers, who were attended the Respondent.
5. The 3rd Petitioner is the Authorized Signatory of the 1st Petitioner-Company, therefore, he verified Reply Statement against the Respondent as per the instructions and advice of the 2nd Petitioner. Therefore, the Petitioners have committed Criminal defamation punishable under Sections 499 & 500 of IPC.
6. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the 1st Petitioner is an Automobile Manufacturing Company, the 2nd Petitioner is the Managing Director of the 1st Petitioner-Company/M/s. Nissan Motor India Private Limited and the 3rd Petitioner is the Manager-Legal of the 1st Petitioner Company who interacted with customers for sales and service through several Private Dealership networks. One such Dealer is M/s. Jain Jubilant Cars Private Limited, Egmore.
7. The Respondent purchased a Nissan Sunny XVD Diesel Car from the dealership in the month of August 2012, During September 2012 the Respondent visited the dealership with regard to air leakage in the front tire of the Car. The Respondent insisted that the above defects are covered under Warranty terms and claimed it to be a manufacturing defect. After due checks and tests, the dealership informed that the defects are not covered under the Manufacturer's Warranty. Thereafter the Respondent made efforts to persuade the Dealership to replace the wheel rim under warranty terms and also had heated and exchanged words with the technical and other personal of the Dealership, who attended the Respondent. Thereafter the Respondent filed a Complai
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
