The Fact News Service
Chandigarh, April 7,
A notice has been issued by the Punjab and Haryana High Court (HC) to a complainant in a case against the Director of Jaguar Land Rover India Limited (JLRIL) asking why “an exemplary cost may not impose upon him for abusing the process of law”.
A bench of Justice Alok Jain, termed it case of “misuse and abuse of the powers by the authorities” at the behest of the complainant in the case while hearing a plea filed by JLRIL Director Rajiv Gupta for quashing of the FIR in an alleged case of deficiency in service of a Range Rover
Gupta was booked in an FIR registered in Faridabad, under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 420 (cheating), and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the IPC for alleged “deficiency in service on the part of the dealership”.
In an FIR registered on the complaint of Kawal Sikka, a resident of Faridabad, who had bought the Ranger Rover SUV. Sikka had alleged in the FIR that he had purchased the vehicle from Shiva Motorcop at Noida, and the Gupta was the Director (After Sales).
During the resumed hearing, Gupta through his counsel Advocate Abhilaksh Gaind, argued that in a purely civil dispute or at the best, a dispute relating to defects with regard to certain functions of a car, an FIR has been lodged against him.
Advocate Gaind emphasized a sized on the clause that the relationship between the manufacturing company and the retailer/dealer is that of “principal to principal” and any defect in the product sold or deficiency found in the service will be the responsibility of the authorized dealers while the complaints made by the purchaser of the car will be addressed to and redressed by the dealer only.
Sikka executed an MOU with the dealer on March 10, 2023, in which he specifically agreed to withdraw all the complaints including the present FIR, but has failed to do so which Gaind argued during the proceedings. Gupta’s counsel also apprised about a satisfaction note before the HC, as per which the Sikka has confirmed that he is fully satisfied with the vehicle and the same was done after undertaking a joint road test in the presence of the representatives of the authorized dealer.
Gupta’s counsel argued that there was no role attributed to him or his company and he has been unnecessarily dragged into this criminal litigation, which is apparently a civil dispute, by the State and other authorities.
The State counsel, however, submitted that the petitioner is the director of the company which manufactures the car and he is vicariously responsible and has been charged on the strength of Section 120-B of IPC, and also that the dealer from the very inception knew that there were defects in the car and therefore, the FIR was lodged.
On hearing the matter, Justice Jain said that the State counsel could not deny the fact that Sikka took the delivery of the vehicle but did not raise any such objection on the date of taking possession. More so, Gupta had no role with regard to the said delivery of the vehicle which was given on June 24, 2022, and also the present complaint which was lodged on September 16, 2022, which is after a lapse of more than three months.
“It is an apparent case of misuse and abuse of the powers by the authorities at the behest of respondent No. 2 (complainant Sikka) and this Court prima facie finds this to be a fit case to impose exemplary cost on respondent No. 2 and the State Authorities,” observed Justice Jain.
The Bench ordered, thus adjourning the matter for May 14, , “Let fresh notice be issued for respondent No. 2 for the date fixed, granting him an opportunity as to why an exemplary cost may not be imposed upon him for abusing the process of law.”
