- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent State. No one appears for the respondent no.2 in spite of valid service of notice upon him. The petitioner, being the Regional Manager (East) of Maruti Udyog Ltd., has been made accused in Chutia P.S. Case No.79 of 1999, corresponding to G.R. No.1356 of 1999 for the offence under Section 406/34 IPC. It appears that a complaint petition was filed by the respondent no.2 Dr. Subrat Biswas before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, which was sent for institution of the police case, on the basis of which the said Chutia P.S. Case No.79 of 1999 was registered.
(2.) THERE is allegation in the said complaint petition that the complainant Dr. Subrat Biswas had booked a Maruti Zen Car after depositing the amount of Rs.3,19,300/- in favour of Maruti Udyog Ltd. which he had deposited with Ashish Automobiles. The receipt for the deposit of money was issued by Ashish Automobiles with the assurance that the vehicle would be delivered to the complainant within 15 days, but the said vehicle was never delivered to the complainant and accordingly, the complaint case was filed, in which the petitioner being the Regional Manager of Maruti Udyog Ltd., was made accused No.3, the other accused persons, being the director and the General Manager of Ashish Automobiles, with whom the booking of Maruti vehicle, was made. From perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that there is no whisper of any allegation against the petitioner in the entire complaint petition, rather the petitioner has been made accused in this case only being the Regional Manager of the Maruti Udyog Ltd. The petitioner has filed this writ application with prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding against him in connection with Chutia P.S. Case No.79 of 1999, corresponding to G.R. No.1356 of 1999. Several other such cases were filed against the said Ashish Automobiles and in one such case the then Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Maruti Udyog Ltd. was also made an accused in Chutia P.S. Case No.78 of 1999, corresponding to G.R. No.1355 of 1999, which was also instituted for the offence under Section 406/34 of the I.P.C., mainly on the same allegations.
(3.) THE question arose in the said Chutia P.S. Case No.78 of 1999 whether the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Maruti Udyog Ltd. was vicariously liable for the offence under Section 406/34 of the I.P.C. This was considered by this Court in Cr.W.J.C. No.130 of 1999(R), which was allowed by Judgment dated 5.1.2012, wherein the various precedents on this point were discussed and it was held that though there may be civil liability of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Maruti Udyog Ltd., to see that either the car was delivered to the complainant or his money was paid with due interest, but so far as the criminal liability is concerned, it was found that there was no criminal liability in view of the fact that there was no specific allegation of any offence committed by the Chairman-cum- Managing Director of the Maruti Udyog Ltd., in the entire complaint petition and as such, the continuance of the criminal proceeding against him was found to be absolutely illegal. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with the said Chutia P.S. Case No.78 of 1999, corresponding to so far as it related to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Maruti Udyog Ltd., was quashed. The Judgment of the said case is reported in 2012(1) JLJR 171. In the present case also, I find that the case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the said Cr.W.J.C. No.130 of 1999(R) in R.S.S.L.N. Bhaskarudu Vs. The State of Bihar (Now State of Jharkhand) & Another, reported in 2012(1) JLJR 171, in as much as, no specific allegation of any offence committed by the petitioner being the Regional Manager (East) of the Maruti Udyog Ltd., has been made in the entire complaint petition. As such without discussing the law on the subject again in detail, it is directed that the Judgment reported in 2012(1) JLJR 171 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the facts of present case also. Accordingly, there is no criminal liability on the petitioner and as such, continuance of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner is absolutely illegal and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.;