( 1 ) THIS order shall govern the disposal of both the aforesaid M. Cr. Cs.

( 2 ) PETITIONER Anand Mahindra, Managing Director of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. and M/s. Bhopal Motors Ltd. , Bhopal have filed both the aforesaid petitions under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners as well as the order dated 6/3/1998 passed in Criminal Case No. 586/98 and also for quashing the order dated 18/5/2001 passed by Sessions Judge, Vidisha in civil Revision No. 45/2001.

( 3 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the complainant Saudan Singh has filed a private complaint against both the petitioners that he purchased a commander jeep from bhopal Motors, Bhopal on 18/9/1997. Mahindra and Mahindra Company is the manufacturer of the Commander Jeep and bhopal Motors, Bhopal is the dealer of the petitioner Company and there is no dispute about the aforesaid facts. It has also been mentioned in the complaint that the complainant along with his two friends Sahid parwej and Ku. Sanju Raghuvanshi had applied for loan of Rs. one lac each under unemployment scheme and after purchase of the aforesaid vehicle they were intending to run it and earn money for their livelihood. The loan was sanctioned and the bank draft for Rs. 3,02,610/- was prepared in the name of Bhopal Motors and the amount was forwarded to the dealer by a covering letter by the bank and thereafter the delivery of the jeep was given on 1-9-1997. The jeep was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company of Branch Vidisha and vehicle was also registered with RTO Vidisha. The trial of the jeep was taken on 19-9-1997. Soon after the delivery of the jeep by Bhopal Motors complainant found the leakage of oil from its engine and some defects were also pointed out in the gear box and clutch plate and he took the vehicle to Bhopal for repairs. However, despite the repair the defect could not be rectified and again on 24-9-1997 the jeep was left with the Bhopal Motors Ltd. for repairs, which remained with the Bhopal motors up to 26-9-1997. The complaint of the complainant was that during this period bhopal Motors changed the engine and fitted an old engine in its place and embossed thereon the engine number and did not intimate it to RTO. The complainant/respondent No. 1 further alleged that engine was changed in conspirarcy with sanghi Brothers, Indore and mahindra and Mahindra Company, Mumbai. The complaint was initially registered under Sections 420, 406 read with section 120-B, IPC vide order dt. 6-3-1998 by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, vidisha and thereafter process was issued. M/s. Sanghi Brothers appeared before the court of A. C. J. M. Vidisha and submitted an application for discharge and A. C. J. M. , vidisha dropped the proceedings against the sanghi Brothers and exonerated in the case and now the case is pending against both the petitioners. Both the petitioners also filed revision before the Sessions Judge, Vidisha against the order of issuing process, but the learned Sessions Judge vide order dt. 18-5-2001 dismissed the aforesaid revision, against which both the petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C.

( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Court of A. C. J. M. , Vidisha is not having any jurisdiction to try the complaint as no part of crime or part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of A. C. J. M. , Vidisha and on that ground prayed for quashment of the proceedings.

( 5 ) IN reply Shri R. K. Sharma and Shri anil Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that offence is partly committed within the jurisdiction of a. C. J. M. , Vidisha and the act contained is also a criminal act of cheating and forgery, which is a punishable offence and both the petitions under Section 482, Cr. P. C. are not maintainable as the petitioners in both the peti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document