D.K. Sinha, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of his criminal prosecution in Complaint Case No. 108/1998, including the order dated 21st September, 2001 by which processes were directed to be issued against him by Ms. Premlata Tripathi, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro for the alleged offence under Sections 406/420/120 -B of the Indian Penal Code. The case is presently pending in the court of Sri A. Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro.
(2.) PROSECUTION story in short was that the complainant -opposite party No. 2 Shri Basudeo Mishra had filed Complaint Case No. 108/1998 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro against as many as nine accused persons alleging, inter alia, that in January, 1997, TELCO in association with M/s. Enar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. (the Dealer) organized a seminar at Bokaro Steel City where the accused persons highlighted the features of a newly made chassis branded as 1312 TC. It was canvassed that the chassis had good engine carrying warrantee for 1 1/2 years and the facility of service for eight years. Being induced, the opposite party No. 2 purchased the said chassis branded as 1312 TC and started plying the Bus. However, after a short while, defects in the engine as well as in the radiator developed, which could not be cured immediately on account of non -availability of spare parts and also in absence of trained technicians and therefore the complainant being aggrieved, alleged that the accused committed offence under Sections 406/420/120 -B of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. V.P. Singh, the learned Sr. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, submitted that the complainant had arrayed the accused by designation that was provided by the Company simpliciter without naming individual. The complainant had arrayed the General Manager (Sales) of the Company as accused No. 3 and also arrayed the Area Service Manager of the Company as accused No. 5 without disclosing their names. Petitioner, however, in the said complaint stands arrayed as accused No. 4 in the capacity of the Regional Manager (Sales) along with one Mr. Ramlingam, the then Service Engineer of the Company, who also stands arrayed as accused No. 6. Both the Petitioner and the said Ramlingam were no longer in service serving the said Company TELCO.
(3.) MR . Singh, appearing for the Petitioner, explained that neither the Petitioner nor the Company was ever served the process of the Court. However, the Company could gather that the complaint was filed on 24.4.1998 and the same was pending for issuance of processes until 21st September, 2001 pursuant to the statement of the complainant on his solemn affirmation and evidence of three enquiry witnesses viz. Manindranath Jha, Vijay Kumar Adhikari and Kajal Sen. Thereafter, processes were directed to be issued by the order dated 21st September, 2001 against all the accused for the prima facie alleged offences punishable under Sections 406/420/120 -B of the Indian Penal Code.;