MAIN POINT
When a complainant intends to rope in a Managing Director or any officer of a company, it is essential to make requisite allegation to constitute the vicarious liability.

JUDGMENT

DIPAK MISRA, J.

Calling in question the legal validity of the order dated 30.11.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in M.Cr.C No. 1922 of 2002 whereby the learned Judge had declined to exercise the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) for quashing of the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 895 of 2001 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Betul which has been registered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant, the present appeal has been preferred by special leave.

2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts which are necessary to be stated are that the appellant who is the Managing Director M/s. Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Ltd., Indore which is a registered company duly incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of automobile sale, finance and shipping etc. having branches at various places including the city of Bhopal. The respondent-complainant obtained a quotation from the Bhopal Branch for purchase of a TATA Diesel vehicle model SFC 709/38 LB in the month of April 1998 and the vehicle was delivered to the respondent on 01.05.1998 on payment of the price deposited at Bhopal vide Bank Draft issued from the State Bank of India, Sarni, Betul. The respondent faced difficulty with the vehicle and eventually he came to know in the month of August 2000 that there was a discrepancy in the engine number of the invoice issued to him. On further enquiry, he found that there is a letter issued by Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company (TELCO) on 7.11.2000 that in the course of transit from the company to Bhopal, the said vehicle had met with an accident as a result of which the engine was replaced by another engine. Coming to know of this, the respondent filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C alleging that M/s Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Ltd., Indore being represented by the Managing Director, Sharad Kumar Sanghi, had suppressed the information and deliberately cheated the respondent.

3. The learned Magistrate, after following the procedure as contemplated under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C, took cognizance of the offence to which we shall advert to at a later stage.

4. After cognizance was taken and summons were issued, the appellant filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Betul which was dismissed on 27.02.2002

5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, he preferred an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C before the High Court. It was contended before the High Court that the learned Magistrate had no territorial jurisdiction; that there was no deceit by the respondent; that the company was not made an accused in the complaint and, therefore, the complaint was not maintainable; and that there was no mens rea. The High Court, as is manifest from the order impugned repelled all the submissions and dismissed the application for quashment.

6. We have heard Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Akshat Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent.

7. It is not in dispute that the vehicle was purchased by the respondent on 01.05.1998 The invoice contained a different engine number than the engine that was fitted into the vehicle. The respondent lodged the complaint on 08.05.2001. To satisfy ourselves whether there has been specific allegation against the appellant, we have carefully perused the complaint filed under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C English translation of the complaint has been brought on record. The original complaint which is in Hindi has also been filed. The allegations made against the appellant read as follows :

“That the proprietor of M/s Sanghi Brothers Indore accused Sharad S/o Sohan Sanghi negligently prepare the accidental vehicle no. 709 L.M & projected the same as new to deliver the complainant causing gain to self and loss to the complainant which is punishable U/s 420 of the I.P.C”

8. Barring the