For prosecution under Section 420 RPC, there must be a direct transaction and evidence of deceit, which was absent in this case.

JUDGMENT :

1. The respondent no. 1-Bank has filed a complaint under Section 420 RPC , against the petitioner and respondent no. 2, thereby alleging that the respondent no. 1 after relying upon the documents such as Form-22-A, Sale Certificate, Temporary Certificate of Registration, had granted a loan facility of Rs. 38.78 lacs for two vehicles, Brand EICHER-TERRA16XP E CBC TY BSIII-N ABS, to one Javid Ahmad Sheikh against the two Proforma Invoices bearing Nos. 1779 & 1780, issued by the respondent no. 2.

2. When the respondent no. 1 demanded the Certificate of Registration of RTO from the borrower, the borrower apprised the respondent no.1 through the medium of application on 15.02.2017 that he tried a lot to get those vehicles registered but failed due to the vehicles being Bharat Stage III compliant, and because of non-registration of the dumpers, he could not ply the same. It was further alleged by the respondent no. 1, that there was a ban on sale of such vehicles, as per Circular of Ministry of Roadways, and thus, the accused has cheated and committed fraud upon the complainant, resulting pecuniary loss due to non payment of loan along with interest.

3. The Court of learned Munsiff, Judicial Magistrate Budgam, (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial court’) by virtue of order dated 18.12.2017, adjourned the complaint and fixed next date as 22.02.2018 for further proceedings and simultaneously summoned the accused therein i.e., the petitioner and the respondent no. 2.

4. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the complaint filed by the respondent no. 1 titled ‘State Bank of India vs Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer, Eicher Motors Ltd. & Anr’ and also the Order dated 18.12.2017 on the following grounds;

i) that the petitioner was not privy to the transaction constituting the subject matter of the impugned complaint and nothing has been alleged or ascribed to the petitioner warranting issuance of process under Section 204 Cr.P.C . against the petitioner.

ii) that the allegations levelled in the complaint do not make out offence under Section 420 RPC against the petitioner.

iii) that as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘M.C.Mehta vs Union of India & Ors’ all the vehicles registering authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act were restrained from registering such vehicles on and from 1st April 2017, which did not meet BS-IV emission standards except on proof that such a vehicle had already been sold on or before 31 st March, 2017.

iv) that bare glance at the proforma invoices as well as Form 22-A, Sale Certificate and Temporary Certificate of Registration, filed by the respondent no. 1, would show that there was no misrepresentation whatsoever qua the vehicle, so far as the petitioner herein is concerned.

5. Mr. R. A. Jan, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the complaint filed by the respondent no. 1 does not disclose the commission of offence under section 420 RPC and the petitioner was never privy to the transactions between the borrower and the respondents. He has further argued that the Order impugned dated 18.12.2017, is the classic example of non application of mind as the learned Magistrate has issued the process in a mechanical manner without determining the nature of the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner.

6. Per contra Mr. Q. R. Shamas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1, has argued that the petitioner has cheated the respondent no. 1, by selling the vehicle to the borrower which was not BS-IV compliant and the Government had specifically barred the sale of such vehicles.

7. Heard and perused the record.

8. The perusal of the compliant would reveal that the vehicles were purchased by the borrower after availing the loan facility from the respondent no. 1. The amount was paid to M/S LAHORI EICHER. The petitioner is right in submitting that the petitioner had never been privy to any transaction between the borrower and the respondents. I