Writ petition filed to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 420/467/468/409 IPC regarding alleged cheating for non-provision of machine maintenance services after the petitioner's employment termination.
Quashed entire criminal proceeding in connection with Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No. 144 of 2000.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) No. 93 of 2002
Swaroop Ghosh ... ... ... Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Dr. R.N. Jha, ... ... ... Respondents
CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR
...........
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani For the Respondents : Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, J.C. to G.P.-V
10/05.04.2013
This application has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding in connection with Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No. 144 of 2000 dated 22.04.2000, registered under Sections 420/467/468/409 of the Indian Penal Code.
It appears that at the relevant time, petitioner was working as Regional Manager of H.C.L. Picker Ltd. and was posted at Ranchi. It is alleged that petitioner along with one Tapas Mallik approached complainant for purchase of Sonorex Ultra Sound Scanner (Nebula 505) machine. It is alleged that said machine was demonstrated by the petitioner and Tapas Mallik and they gave assurance that company will provide necessary services after purchase. Accordingly, complainant purchased aforesaid machine and paid its price through different bank drafts i.e Rs. 2,60,000/- (Rs. Two lacs sixty thousand). Thereafter machine installed in the premises of complainant. It is stated that after few days of installation, the machine started giving trouble accordingly complainant reported the matter to Regional Office of the Company at Ranchi. Thereafter machine was attended by the company. However, again machine started giving trouble and thereafter matter was reported to the Office of Company, i.e. H.C.L. Picker at Calcutta for removing the defect. It is alleged that when no service rendered by the Company, the complainant gave legal notice to the company. Thereafter Service Engineer visited complainant's place on 24.09. 1997 and repaired the machine. It is stated that the company (H.C.L. Picker Ltd.) handed over a letter to the complainant for entering into contract for annual maintenance of machine. However, there is nothing to show that complainant entered into an agreement for annual maintenance. It appears that later on again, machine started giving trouble and it was again attended by Service Engineer of the company.
It then appears that when again machine started giving trouble and none had come from the company to attend it, present case filed.
It is submitted by Sri A.K. Sahani that petitioner was Regional Manager of the H.C.L. Picker Ltd. (company) in question till 01.12.1996. Thereafter petitioner resigned from said company and joined another company. It is further submitted that only allegation against petitioner that he gave assurance that proper maintenance services will be provided to the machine after its installation. He then submits that till the petitioner remained in the service of H.C.L. Picker Ltd., proper service provided to the machine. Under the said circumstance, petitioner had not cheated complainant. It is submitted that company, i.e. H.C.L. Picker Ltd. has not been made accused in this case though complainant alleged that company is not attending the machine. Thus, for the fault of company, that too when the petitioner left the company, he cannot be held liable. It is further submitted that warranty period of the machine was only for one year, from the date of installation, i.e 22nd December 1995, which expired on 21.12.1996. There is nothing in the complaint petition to show that complainant entered into annual maintenance agreement. Under the said circumstance after expiry of warranty period, petitioner, as well as H.C.L. Picker Ltd. are not bound to maintain the machine. It is submitted that if complainant has any grievance with regard to the quality of machine, it ought to have file a suit for damage.
Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that from perusal of paragraph No. 1,2 and 10 of the complaint petition, primafacie offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against petitioner. Accordingly, he submits that this writ application is liable to be rejected.
Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of case. Admittedly, there is an agreement between the complainant and H.C.L. Picker Ltd. for purchase of a sonography scanning machine namely Sonorex Ultra Sound Scanner (Nebula 505). Said machine was demonstrated to the complainant by this petitioner and one Tapas Mallik in the year 1995 at Ranchi and they have given assurance to the complainant that they will maintain the machine after purchase. It appears that on the basis of said demonstration and assurance, complainant purchased said machine. The terms and conditions of the agreement are part of first information
report. From perusal of same, it appears that company gave warranty against the manufacturing defect of machine in question for a period of 12 months, from the date of installation. It is an admitted position that machine installed on 22.12.1995. Thus, as per aforesaid terms and conditions, machine required to be attended by company till 21.12.1996. It appears from paragraph No. 6 of the complaint petition that when trouble started in the said machine, matter reported to the Regional Office of the company at Ranchi. Thereafter one Biplab Bhattarcharjee attended the machine in October 1996 and had rectified the defect. It also appears that in the year 1997 also, said machine attended by company free of cost. It is stated in the complaint petition that in the year 1997, company asked complainant for entering into annual maintenance agreement, but there is nothing to show that complainant entered into said agreement. Under the said circumstance, I find that after expiry of warranty period, there is no obligation on the part of company to provide maintenance service.
Moreover, in this case, company has not been made party. Petitioner, who was the then Regional Manager has left the company i.e. H.C.L. Picker Ltd. from 1st December 1996 and joined another company. Under the said circumstance, if the company has not maintained the said machine after December 1996, petitioner cannot be held liable for the same. Thus, I find that petitioner had not cheated the complainant in his individual capacity, because, till he remain under the employment of the H.C.L. Picker Ltd., he send Service Engineer for attending the machine, as assured. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance, I find that no offence made out against the petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, I allow this application and quash entire criminal proceeding in connection with Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No. 144 of 2000.
(Prashant Kumar, J.)
Binit
1 issue framed by the court
Whether offence under Section 420 IPC is made out against a company employee who was no longer employed when services ceased.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Swaroop Ghosh
The State of Jharkhand
Dr. R.N. Jha
PRASHANT KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
