Prashant Kumar, J. - (1.) This writ application has been filed for quashing the F.I.R., so far it relates to the petitioner, namely, Alexey B. Agibalov, in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 75 of 2014 (G.R. No. 734 of 2014) pending in the Court of learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, under Ss. 406/420/467/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that the complainant, M/s. Chanani Transport had purchased 10 tippers, namely, Kamaz 6540, manufactured by Kamaz Vectra Motors Limited, after going through the booklet and warranty papers of the aforesaid tippers for a sum of Rs. 3,25,00,000/ -. It is stated that after sometime, the aforesaid tippers become defective. Thereafter, the complainant written to Kamaz Vectra Motors Limited for changing the said vehicles, as per the guarantee given by the said company. It is stated that a meeting took place in between the complainant's officers and officers of the Kamaz Vectra Motors Limited and in that meeting on 8.4.2012, the Kamaz Vectra Motors Limited had agreed to replace the 10 tippers with 5 new model tippers i.e. Kamaz 6520 model. However, the said agreement is subject to some conditions, mentioned in the said minutes itself.
(2.) It is alleged that even after the aforesaid assurance, the Kamaz Vectra Motors Limited had not replaced the defective vehicles with 5 new tippers and, hence the complainant alleged that the Kamaz Vectra Motors Limited represented by this petitioner, has cheated the complainant. Therefore, the present case has been filed.
(3.) Sri Pandey Neeraj Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that from the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint petition, no offence made out against the petitioner. He submits that there is nothing in the F.I.R. to show that petitioner had deceived the complainant in his personal capacity, nor there is any averment in the complaint petition to show that on the assurance of this petitioner, the complainant had purchased 10 tippers and delivered the money to the company. Under the said circumstance, the offence of cheating not made out against the petitioner. It is further submitted that there is no averment in the F.I.R. to show that complainant has entrusted any property to the petitioner, which the petitioner has misappropriated, thus no offence made out under Sec. 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Sri Pandey Neeraj Roy further submits that there is no allegation in the F.I.R. that the petitioner has committed forgery. Thus, the offence under Ss. 467, 468, 471 of the IPC are also not made out against the petitioner. Sri Roy submits that this is a case of pure and simple civil dispute because admittedly the Kamaz Vectra Motors Limited had supplied 10 tippers to the complainant as ordered by it. It is alleged that the above tippers became defective after some time. Therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sharon Michael and Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another reported in : (2009) 3 SCC 375, the dispute between the parties is civil in nature and hence no criminal offence made out against the petitioner, therefore, the F.I.R. lodged against the petitioner be quashed.;