Kiran Raj

The Single Bench of the Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a petitioner in a case concerning allegations of misrepresentation and the supply of a defective automobile. The court held that the allegations did not establish a prima facie case for cheating or criminal conspiracy and determined that the dispute was more appropriately a matter for civil adjudication rather than criminal prosecution.

The matter arose from a complaint filed by a company that had purchased an Audi Q5 PI 2.0 TDI (Navigational Model) from an authorized distributor in India. The complainant alleged that the purchase was influenced by promotional materials that assured high safety standards, superior performance, and reliability. The complainant company stated that it made an inquiry with the authorized distributor, Mohan Motors Distributors Private Limited, about the vehicle’s specifications, including its safety features.

On August 18, 2014, after paying a total sum of Rs 50,66,520 through RTGS, the complainant company received delivery of the vehicle. The car was registered in the complainant’s name on the same day under a two-year manufacturer’s warranty. Subsequently, the complainant used the vehicle regularly without reporting any major issues until November 29, 2015. On that date, while the complainant’s chairman and two other occupants were traveling to Balasore, the vehicle allegedly suffered a brake failure on NH-6 at Uluberia. The driver managed to bring the car to a stop safely.

Following this incident, the complainant's company wrote to the distributor on December 1, 2015, detailing the alleged defect and requesting a replacement or a full refund. The vehicle was sent to an authorized service center, where the issue was examined. The service center replaced the brake fluid free of charge and returned the vehicle to the complainant on December 5, 2015. Despite this repair, the complainant maintained that the vehicle was defective and insisted on a refund, leading to the initiation of criminal proceedings under Sections 418, 420, 34, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner, who was the Managing Director of Mohan Motors Distributors Private Limited, sought to quash the proceedings, arguing that he had no direct involvement in the alleged offense and that the complaint lacked necessary legal elements to constitute criminal fraud.

The court examined the allegations and submissions from both sides. It observed that the complainant had used the vehicle without issue for over 15 months before making any claims regarding a defect. The court further noted that the first servicing of the vehicle had been completed on June 29, 2015, and there had been no reported problems for five months after that.

The court recorded that "the vehicle, which functions properly for a considerable period of time since its sales and services, cannot be said to be defective or supplied as a defective car." The judgment also pointed out that since brake systems undergo regular wear and tear, a failure occurring long after purchase does not necessarily indicate a manufacturing defect present at the time of sale.

It was further noted that the complainant had not presented any independent technical report to support the claim that the vehicle was defective. The complaint primarily relied on the fact that the brakes failed once, which was not sufficient to establish that the car had been defective from the outset.

Another key judicial observation was that "such a dispute of supply of a defective car or return of money is a matter of civil dispute, and the remedy for which lay under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986." The court held that criminal law should not be used as a means to resolve commercial disagreements. It cited multiple precedents, including Ford India Ltd. v. Sunbeam Ancillary Pvt. Ltd., where the Supreme Court had ruled that cases involving allegations of defective products should be pursued through consumer forums rather than criminal courts.

The judgment also referenced Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, stating that "summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course." The court stated that there was no material evidence to establish dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner, which is a necessary ingredient for an offense under Section 420 IPC.

Moreover, the court found that the complainant’s demand for a refund, despite the repairs carried out within the warranty period, indicated a contractual dispute rather than a criminal offense. It was observed that "the petitioner is being made to face criminal proceedings without any prima facie case being established against him."

After a detailed examination of the complaint, the court held that "the uncontroverted allegations made in the complaint and the evidence collected do not disclose the commission of any offense." It found that continuing the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the legal process.

Accordingly, the court quashed the criminal proceedings under Case No. C/0062851/2016 pending before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court at Calcutta, in so far as they pertained to the petitioner.

The court further directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the trial court for information and any interim order stands vacated.

Case Title: Gaurav Bajaj v. The State of West Bengal & Another
Case Number: C.R.R. 3068 of 2017
Bench: Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta

[Read/Download order]