CRLRC/589/2023 of Meharunnisha Begum Vs The State of Telangana on 29 December 2023

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is hled aggrieved by the order dated, 27.04.202:3 passed by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate ofFirst Class, Karimnagar, in Crl.M.P.No.7O4 of 2O2l in CC.No.1l84of 2O16, whereby the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition filedby the accused :;eeking discharge.

2. The 2"d respondent/complainant is the authorized passengercar dealer of TATA Motors. Complaint was hled against thepetitioner hereirr stating that she had purchased TATA Indica vistaLS TDI BS-III crrr from the show room. They have approached thecomplainant per iodically for the purpose of servicing and on severaldates it was alsc serviced.

3. However, the main contention of the complainant is that complaint was filed by this petitioner before the District ConsumerForu.m at Karinrnagar stating that there was deficiency of serviceand there were inherent defects in the vehicle, for which reasoncompensation was sought.

4. The District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum by orderForum by orderby orderorderdated 04.O9.2O15 ordered that the cost of the TATA Indica which The District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum by orderForum by orderby orderorder was Rs.5,30,663/- Rs.5,30,663/- along was Rs.5,30,663/- Rs.5,30,663/- alongwith 9o/o interest, compensation ofRs. 15,OOO/- for causingmental agony and inconvenience,Rs.2,OOO/- costs, shouldbe pai..i by the complainant,/oppositepar$r-I, to this petitioner. Further ordered the opposite party-2 topay an amount of Rs. 1O,OOO/_ towards punitive damages.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the 2.a respondent_complainant

herein who is the opposite party_ l, preferred an appeal before theState Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Telangana atHyderabad, vide FAIA No.7 of 2Ot6 in FASR 2O15l2O15 and thesame was dismissed by order d,ated. 21.O2.2OL6 and. upheld therelief granted to the petitioner herein by the District consumerDisputes Redressal Forum.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Telangana atHyderabad, vide FAIA No.7 of 2Ot6 in FASR 2O15l2O15 and thesame was dismissed by order d,ated. 21.O2.2OL6 and. upheld therelief granted to the petitioner herein by the District consumerDisputes Redressal Forum.

The present complaint present complaint was lodged lodged on 29.01.2016 29.01.2016 i.e. nearly aa 6The present complaint was lodged lodged on 29.01.2016 29.01.2016 i.e. nearly aamonth before the orders passed in the appeal filed by the 2,ai.e. nearly aamonth before the orders passed in the appeal filed by the 2,arespondent-complainant before the StateConsumer DisputesRedressal Commission of Telangala.DisputesRedressal Commission of Telangala.

7. As stated above, the main allegation against the petitioner herein is that though a complaint was filed in the consumer forum,the petitioner was taking services of the 2-a respondent-complainantherein for servi'cing the car. The said services were done on free andalso on paid basis J

8. On the basis of the complaint, Police {iled charge sheet for theoffence under Section 42O of the Indian Penal Code.

9. The petiti,:ner filed application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C.prayrng to discharge her from the case. The learned Magistrate byorder dated 27l)4.2023 declined the prayer for discharge, dismissedthe said petitio.r and directed that the petitioner shall be tried forthe offence undr:r Section 42O of the Indian Penal Code.

10. l,earned Counsel for the reyision petitioner would submit that none of the ingredients of Section 42O are made out. Even assumingthat the petitioner had taken the vehicle to ttre 2.d respondent forthe purpose of servicing, during ttre pendency of the complaintbefore the Consumer Forum, it will not in any way attract any of theingredients of S,:ction 42O of the Indian Penal Code.

11. As seen f:om the complaint, the only allegation is that the petitioner was taking the vehicle to the 2.d respondent for thepurpose of serricing and such seryices were taken during thependency of the complaint before the Consumer Forum.purpose of serricing and such seryices were taken during thependency of the complaint before the Consumer Forum.

12. To attract an offence of cheating under Section 42O of tlreIndian Penal Code, a person should have acted deceitfully. By the \

/

said act of deception a person should have delivered property, which would amount to cheating such person.

13. In the present case, except the allegation of taking services of2"d respondent, there is nothing in the complaint to attract any ofthe ingredients of Section 42O of the Indian penal Code.

14. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and theproceedings against the petitioner are quashed. Consequently theimpugned order dated 27.04.2023 passed by the II AdditionalJudicial Magistrate of First crass, Karimnagz*, in crr.M.p.No.7o4 of2O2l tn CC.No.1184 of 2016, is hereby set aside.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

SD/- CH.VENKATESWARLU,r,,/DEPUTY REGISR(y,.- , ::;,j//TRUE COPY//.; .-:-.t:ElSECTION OFFICER [']i+ii,BilT'',l!rTo,1. The ll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Karimnagar.(with records ifany)2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana atHyderabad{OUTI3. The Station House Officer, Karimnagar I town Police Station, Karimnagar4. One CCto Sri M. Ram Mohan Reddy, Advocate IOPUCI5. Sri Shravan Kumar, M/s. Select Motors, Authorised Passenger Car Dealers ofTATA Motors, Rl/o 8-G396, Kothirampur, Karimnagar.r'. [:r.t']6. Two CD CopiesplpNS $'

-.&,4H', i

HIGH COU]RTDATED:29t1212023

ORDERCRLRC.Nc,.589 of 2023

ALLOWIN(3 THE CRIMINALREVISION CASE4tr

:..j,E'.t ,{*;;,'€: $s\' t. ':;;,'€: $s\' t. ':

ffi.,,i:l-{. ,:.:4i.,,,.-"1 [-..' ][. .'.]/: r,l'..': \:' \.,ii, 2I rlBst [t',]+J .tt,f .t'' . 2.*i : "': [j, ]';l -;' ,filti,,1'';\i [-:]i.... rr,\i'.,'\.;_:1.',,"y' .' [.1,..i][,:]j 'r ..*g*".;'i[jSESTHIEe-*}jr{].,#sffi#i*ti'EAffij.ig,+:ffir-ir:.tj_ [- ][.11-1-j ]ri r,.. , ,1.