NISHA GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of complaint case No. 259/2012 and the order dated 30.10.2012 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jaipur whereby cognizance has been taken against the present petitioners for the offence under Section 384, 418, 420, 406 and 120B IPC and also order dated 10.10.2012 passed in Revision Pet. No. 105/2012 by Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Jaipur Metropolitan whereby revisional court has ordered for cognizance against the present petitioners in their absence. The relevant facts of the case as contained in the petition are that a complaint has been filed by respondent No. 2 alleging therein that petitioners entered into a Local Import Agreement on 8.6.2007 for supply of Porsche Cars, accessories and spare parts dealership in India. The said agreement was terminated vide notice dated 23.3.2011 on the basis of clause 13.2 of the agreement and it is also stated in the complaint that present petitioners has appointed a local dealer in violation of terms of agreement and caused wrongful loss to the respondent. The court below has declined to proceed on the complaint and it was dismissed under Section 204 Cr.P.C., against which a revision petition was filed and revisional court was of the opinion that prima facie there is evidence to take cognizance against the present petitioners on which the court below has took cognizance against the present petitioners, hence this petition.
(2.) THE contention of the present petitioners is that this is the admitted case of the parties that agreement was entered between the parties on 8.6.2007 and it was terminated vide notice dated 1.3.2011 as per clause 13.2 of the agreement after the 12 months of service of notice, the termination notice was received by respondent No. 2 on 7.3.2011 and it was accepted by respondent No. 2 vide two e -mails dated 8.3.2011. The said termination was to be effective from 28.2.2012 but respondent No. 2 requested that the termination period be extended upto 31.3.2012 to coincide it with the financial year closing of respondent No. 2 which was agreed by the petitioner company and thereafter, the Volkswagen Group Sales India Ltd. has been made the exclusive local importer of the company with effect from 1.4.2012. The respondent then filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act of 1996) which was later on withdrawn as the court below has declined to give any interim relief to him. After withdrawing the aforesaid petition, respondent No. 2 again filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act of 1996 for ex parte interim injunction without disclosing the fact that earlier one application under Section 9 of the Act of 1996 has been withdrawn by him. The court below has dismissed the application filed by respondent No. 2, SB Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed before this Court which was also dismissed after that one suit through other company named M/s Shreyans Pvt. Ltd. has been filed against petitioner No. 2, 3 and Volkswagen Group Sales India Ltd. which was also dismissed under 0.7 R.11 CPC and appeal has also been dismissed thereafter with malice and mala fide intention, criminal complaint has been filed and the court below has declined to issue process holding that the dispute was primarily of civil nature but the revisional court has ordered for taking cognizance.
(3.) THE contention of the present petitioners is that respondent has deliberately concealed the material facts from the trial Court that after completing the innings of civil litigation, this complaint has been filed just to pressurize the present petitioners and to settle their scores, the only allegation against the, petitioners is that during the subsistence of agreement, they have appointed local importer but the petitioners has not supplied any vehicles, accessories or spare parts to Volkswagen Group Sales India Ltd. The Volkswagen Group Sales India Ltd. has been appointed as importer w.e.f. 1.4.2012 only after termination of existing agreement with respondent No. 2. The communication between petitioners and Volkswagen Group Sales India Ltd. in the year 2011 is with regard to training of employees to channalise the business of present petitioners and first consignment was received by Volkswagen Group Sales India Ltd. in August and September, 2012 much after the termination of the agreement between the present parties. On a bare perusal of the complaint, it reveals that the allegations levelled therein taken on the face value do not constitute or disclose commission of any offence and complaint has been filed without any factual or legal basis with malafide intention and the Court should exercise extraordinary jurisdiction to advance real and substantial justice. It is not the case of the respondent that at the time of entering into the agreement i.e. 8.6.2007, the present petitioners were having any dishonest intention. The present petitioners Has not threatened or intimidated the respondent in any way, the e -mails placed before the Court by the respondent speak itself that they confirms the commercial relations between the parties. The dispute is purely of civil nature and when the respondent lost his battle in civil proceedings just to harass the present petitioners, this false FIR has been lodged and the order passed by revisional court is per verse and present petitioners has not been made a party in the proceedings which was mandatory as per provisions of Sec. 401 Cr.P.C., hence the proceedings be quashed and the present petitioners should not be traumatized to face the trial. Per contra, the contention of the respondent is that no case is made out for quashing of the proceedings. His first contention is that the matter has been fixed only for admission and it cannot be disposed of finally. The petition has been submitted through power of attorney holder which is not maintainable. No permission has been sought for filing the petition through power of attorney holder. No affidavit has been filed in respect of the petition, cognizance order can be challenged by way of revision and when alternative remedy is available, this petition is not maintainable. On facts, the contention is that user I.D. to the Volkswagen Group Sales India Ltd. has been issued by the present petitioners way back on 6.5.2011 when admittedly, agreement between the parties was in subsistence and due to issue of user I.D. to Volkswagen Group Sales India Ltd. it could get access to the data base of respondent company. According to clause 9.7 of the agreement both the parties were under obligation for not disclosing confidential information to any third party and this condition has been broken by the present petitioners, they have disclosed information to the Volkswagen Group Sales India Ltd. When prima facie case is made out against the petitioners only due to assertion of mala fides, complaint cannot be thrown out at the threshold as the complicated question of fact and law arises by the averment in the complaint and defence version cannot be looked into, PPN Account of respondent No. 2 has been de -activated and cars which he has received could not be put in motion. He has suffered wrongful loss, hence there is no ground for quashing the proceedings, this Court under inherent powers could not act as court of appeal or as a trial court,, hence the petition is liable to be rejected.;