- (1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2.
(2.) THIS application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 9.6.2011 passed in Complaint Case No.106 of 2011 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner and others. Before adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the case of the complainant needs to be taken notice of. It is the case of the complainant -opposite party no.2 that she along with her husband came to the showroom of M/s. Jayshree Ford Motors for purchasing a new car. There they selected one car and asked the Manager that they will be coming next day for taking its delivery. In the evening, Raj Kumar Agrawal, owner of M/s. Jayshree Ford Motors and also General Manage made a call on telephone to the complainant and conveyed her that one car belonging to this petitioner, Prem Kumar Tiwary is there in the showroom and it is meant for sale which she can inspect and may decide to purchase the same. The other day, the complainant along with her husband went to the showroom and did find Ford Fiesta car bearing registration no. JH -01W -6001 standing over there. There apart from the owner and the General Manager, this petitioner was also present. All the three persons said that the car would be sold at the price of Rs. 5,50,000/ -. The said amount was paid and it was told to them that delivery of the car would be given on the next day. On the next day, they delivered the car along with photocopies of owner book, insurance paper etc. along with one written agreement stating therein that within two months the car would be transferred and all the original paper relating to the car would be handed over to them as in the meantime, whatever amount is due to be paid to the Bank, it would be paid to the Bank. In spite of passing of two months, the accused persons did not transfer the car in the name of the complainant nor the original paper was given to her. On such allegation, a complaint was lodged which was registered as Complaint Case no.106 of 2011 in which cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 was taken, vide order dated 9.6.2011 which is under challenge.
(3.) MR . Ananda Sen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the statement has been made on solemn affirmation that the money was given to this petitioner but the money receipt which is part of the complaint petition which has been annexed as Annexure 1 would go to show that the money had been given to Sanjay Kumar Gupta and further from Annexure 2 which is written undertaking given by Sanjay Kumar Gupta, it would appear that it was Sanjay Kumar Gupta who had given undertaking that the car would be registered in the name of the complainant and all the original documents would be transferred within two months and thus, it is evident that the petitioner was nowhere in the picture at all in the matter of transaction of the car, still he has been made accused in this case. Since the petitioner had not made any misrepresentation to the complainant, he cannot be said to have committed any offence whatsoever under Section 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It was further submitted that no allegation is there in the complaint that the petitioner had induced the complainant fraudulently and dishonestly to part with the money for purchasing the car and if that allegation is not there, no offence is made out either under Section 406 or under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.;