MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED AND ANOTHER vs VIJAYNATH JHA
- Court
- Calcutta High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta
C.R.R. No. 2314 of 2024
Maruti Suzuki India Limited & Anr.
Versus
Vijaynath Jha
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee, Ld. Sr. Adv.
Mr. Avishek Das, Adv.
Mr. Soubhik Dey, Adv.
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Mrityunjoy Chatterjee, Adv.
Ms. Suchismita Chakraborty, Adv.
Mr. Arka Roy, Adv.
Mr. Debarnab Adhikary, Adv.
Heard on : 31.07.2026
Judgment on : 02.09.2026
Uploaded on : 02.09.2026
Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.:-
1. This instant Criminal Revisional application has been filed under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short,
2
‘Cr.P.C.’) by the petitioners seeking quashing of the proceedings being
C.S. No. 37758 of 2024 (Mr. Vijaynath Jha Vs. Maruti Suzuki India
Limited & Ors.) under Sections 120B/418/420 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 pending before the Court of the Learned Metropolitan
th
Magistrate, 19 Court at Calcutta and all orders passed therein.
2. The background facts, which led to filing of this Criminal Revisional
application, may be adumbrated as under:
a. The allegations and/or averments made in the petition of
complaint filed before the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
are that the opposite party had purchased a car being "Maruti
Suzuki Celerio ZXI MT" from a dealer, namely, Dewars Garage
Limited, Kolkata. After taking delivery of the said car, he noticed
that the power steering did not automatically return to the central
position after turning. However, at the time of purchase, it was
shown to have a power steering with an auto-rotate system.
b. After using the car for nearly three months, the opposite party
raised the purported steering issue during the first service when
the dealer's service centre dismissed the opposite party's concern,
attributing the non-returnability of the steering to new technology
and labelling it as the new normal. Allegedly, no cogent action was
taken by the petitioners or by the dealership, although the opposite
party had repeatedly raised concerns with the dealership officials.
3
c. An inspection was caused upon receipt of the complaint, after
which the Regional Service Manager of the petitioners replied via
an email that the vehicle of the opposite party was as per
specification, but the return assist feature in the power steering
was not available in the said model of the car. It is essentially upon
these facts that the opposite party felt that the car suffered an
inherent manufacturing defect, and that he has been defrauded
and deceived by the petitioners and the dealer, through their
misleading advertisement, that the car has a power steering
function, leading to suppression of material facts, for which the
opposite party has instituted the complaint case against the
petitioners.
d. The petitioners are aggrieved that the Learned Magistrate took
cognizance against them and further issued summons, inter alia ,
upon them, without applying judicious mind and without
considering that no ingredient of the offence as alleged at all had
been made out against the petitioners in the complaint filed by the
opposite party. Hence, this Criminal Revisional application.
3. Learned Sr. counsel, Mr. Banerjee, along with other counsels,
appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the case filed by
the opposite party is absolutely false, fabricated, and concocted with
th
malicious intention. He purchased the car on 11 August, 2022.
4
th
After receiving delivery on 29 September, 2022, the Opposite Party
drove the car for 3 months and for more than 5000 Kms, after which
he noticed that the power steering did not automatically return to its
central position, which was absurd since such a system is not
available in the said car.
4. It was further submitted that upon receiving the complaint during the
first servicing, the dealer’s service centre considered the contention of
the opposite party and indicated that the steering available in the Car
is normal and functional without any disturbance. An inspection was
conducted again and subsequently, the Regional Service Manager of
the petitioner no. 1/Company replied via an email dated 09.09.2023
indicating that the vehicle purchased by the opposite party was as
per specification. The return assist feature in the power steering was
not available in the said model ‘Celerio ZXi MT’.
5. The car was normally available for three free services, and during
such service on three occasions, i.e., on 28.10.2022, 20.12.2022 and
05.09.2023, no abnormality was noticed. The Regional Service
Manager of the petitioner No. 1 assured and entrusted the opposite
party to drive the vehicle with confidence as no problem was found in
the steering of the car. In reply, the opposite party, vide email dated
09.09.2023 at 07.09 PM, acknowledged the email of the Regional
Service Manager and declared that he is satisfied with the
5
explanation and further endorsed the vehicle as overall, a “very good
and smooth drive car”.
6. It was further contended that despite satisfaction, the opposite party
filed a complaint before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Calcutta, who took cognizance of the said complaint without applying
th
his judicious mind and transferred the case before the Learned 19
Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta for enquiry and disposal. In turn,
summons was issued against the petitioners.
7. It was further contended that even if there was a manufacturing
defect, the case could be at best civil in nature and should not have
been painted in a criminal colour. The opposite party has already
filed a consumer case bearing No. CC/53/2024 in the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata-1 (North).
However, the opposite party has further tried to cloak a civil dispute
in criminality and used it as a pressure tactic or harassment tool to
force the petitioners, for his illegal gain, by way of compensation.
8. It was further submitted that Petitioner No. 1, the company, having
its registered office at New Delhi, and Petitioner No. 2, the CEO of the
company, have no role to play in the dealing or selling the car to the
opposite party, as the car was purchased from the dealer, namely,
Dewars Garage Limited at Kolkata.
6
9. The petitioners have an exquisite reputation for delivering quality
cars in the international market for decades, and they have always
followed all the Government-set standards strictly while
manufacturing any vehicle. The quality of goods or services is directly
proportional to their price. The whole case is based on the allegation
that the auto-returnability feature was not available in the power
steering of the de facto complainant’s car. It was clearly explained to
him on several occasions that power steering is available in two
distinct variants, one with the auto-returnability feature and one
without it, and that the vehicle purchased by the opposite party had
power steering without the auto-returnability feature.
10. The opposite party misinterpreted the fact that power steering
includes an auto-returnability feature, although power steering has
two different and independent features. After driving the car for about
5000 Kms, the officials and technicians personally, and also via
email, explained to the opposite party about the two types of power
steering and, in reply, he admitted everything after being satisfied. As
the Opposite Party purchased the car based on the description which
matches the brochure, the petitioners cannot be held liable. The
allegation of the opposite party is confined to the defect in the power
steering of the car delivered to him, i.e., it lacked the auto-
returnability feature. Even if, for the sake of argument, it is assumed
7
that the opposite party’s case is the supply of a defective car/goods,
the remedy lies under the civil side and, at best, relief is available
under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The opposite party has
filed another case as aforesaid before the Consumer Forum.
Therefore, this present case is baseless and filed only for illegal gain
and to malign the reputation of the petitioners; therefore, if such
proceeding is allowed to be continued against the present petitioners,
without their involvement, it would be an absolute abuse of process
of law and the same is liable to be quashed.
11. Finally, it was submitted that the learned Magistrate did not follow
the Mandatory enquiry under Section 202(1) of the Cr.P.C. before
issuing summons to the petitioners as both the petitioners’ office and
residential address fall outside the jurisdiction of the learned Court;
as such, only non-compliance of the mandatory provision would be
the additional ground for quashing of the instant proceeding.
12. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has
relied upon the following decisions to support his contention that the
allegation against the petitioners is out and out false and no specific
role is attributed against the petitioners for commission of offence as
alleged. The whole case is based on consumer disputes, allegedly
physical flaws, poor quality, or that it does not work as promised.
8
Therefore, the case may be quashed on the basis of observations
made by the Hon’ble Courts in view of the following judgments: -
1
i) Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation ;
2
ii) Anil Mahajan Vs. Bhor Industries Ltd. And Another ;
3
iii) Dr Sharma’s Nursing Home Vs. Delhi Admn. And Others ;
4
iv) Gaurav Bajaj Vs. State Of West Bengal And Anr. ;
v) Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited
5
And Anr. Vs. Datar Switchgear Limited And Others ;
vi) The Ceo, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Ajay Mallick &
6
Ors. ;
7
vii) Maksud Saiyed Vs. State Of Gujarat & Ors. ;
viii) Ford India Limited & Anr. Vs. Sunbeam Ancillary
8
Private Limited .
13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party, on the
other hand, strenuously opposed the prayer of the petitioners and
further submitted that the accused No. 5, being the representative of
the accused No. 3, dealer, i.e., Dewars Garage Limited, gave a long,
1
(2015) 4 SCC 609;
2
(2005) 10 SCC 228;
3
(1998) 8 SCC 745;
4
2025 SCC ONLINE CAL 1786;
5
(2010) 10 SCC 479;
6
CRR NO. 520 OF 2017 ORDER DATED 20.02.2019;
7
(2008) 5 SCC 668;
8
2008 SCC Online Del 764.
9
rosy presentation on the features of the car and influenced him from
the beginning to buy the said car.
14. It was further submitted that the representative of the accused dealer
has, throughout the presentation, impressed the opposite party that
the car has good features and maintained that the car has power
steering but never disclosed that the steering was without auto
return feature, which is common and most of the cars available have
such features.
15. Learned Counsel further submitted that the accused
Manufacturer/Maruti Suzuki India Limited has also not disclosed the
two types of power steering available in the cars manufactured by the
company through its advertisements, promotional catalogues,
brochure and pamphlets; therefore, the accused company, its
officials, representative and dealer are liable for commission of
offence punishable under sections 120B/418/420 of the Indian Penal
Code.
16. It was further argued that such suppression of facts about the
feature of the car or steering tantamount to cheating to the
purchasers, therefore, this revisional application is not maintainable
and is liable to be dismissed as it requires full-fledged trial to unearth
the truth for the ends of justice; otherwise the opposite party as well
as other purchasers would be prejudiced by such suppression and/or
10
continuous deprivation by misrepresentation, suppression and
deceiving other purchasers in future.
17. Having heard the arguments and submissions of the learned
counsels appearing on behalf of the respective parties and on perusal
of the entire records, this Court finds that on the basis of
examination under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., cognizance was taken by
the Learned Court below against the present petitioners under
Sections 418/420/120B of the IPC and the case was transferred to
th
the file of the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 19 Court at Calcutta
for enquiry and disposal.
18. Thereafter, the Learned Magistrate examined the witnesses on solemn
affirmation and on perusal of the complaint and statements, it was
found that a prima facie case was established under Sections
418/420/120B of the IPC against the accused persons including the
present petitioners.
19. From perusal of the petition of complaint, it is found that the
opposite party had purchased a car being “CELERIO ZXI MT” (in
short, ‘the said Car’) on 28.09.2022 at a consideration amount of Rs.
6,17,469/- including base price, insurance, Road tax, Registration fee
etc.
20. The opposite party had admittedly purchased the car without a test
drive. A test drive is ordinarily intended to allow a prospective
11
purchaser to understand the handling and functional characteristics
of the vehicle, including its steering behaviour, before committing to
the purchase.
21. After taking delivery and upon driving the said car, the
complainant/opposite party noticed a serious defect in the Electronic
Power Steering (EPS) system. Normally, an EPS system automatically
returns the steering wheel to centre after a turn, easing the driver's
effort. In this car, however, the wheel did not return to the centre on
its own and had to be corrected manually each time, requiring extra
caution and creating a real risk of losing control and colliding with
another vehicle or a wall. Having forgone that opportunity of a test
drive, the opposite party is not in a good position to contend that the
steering characteristics of the vehicle, which he noticed only after
using it for nearly three months and over 5,000 kms, were allegedly
fraudulently concealed from him at the threshold.
22. The complainant had repeatedly raised concerns vide telephonic
conference, email and finally legal notice, but his issue has not been
resolved. Eventually, he had to take recourse by filing a complaint
case against the accused persons.
23. The complaint clearly reveals that the opposite party initially raised
the complaint with regard to the power steering of the car after nearly
three months of using the car and driving it almost 5,000 kms,
12
during the first service on 28.10.2022. The supervisors and managers
at the service centre dismissed it as "new technology" and the "new
normal." Having driven a Zen Estilo since 2008 and an SUV regularly,
the Complainant found this explanation unacceptable. Despite
attempting to adjust, the stiff, unresponsive steering remained
hazardous, especially on flyovers and sharp turns.
24. The principal question which falls for consideration before this Court
is whether the allegations made in the petition of complaint, taken at
their face value and accepted in their entirety, disclose the
commission of any offence punishable under Sections 120B, 418 and
420 of the Indian Penal Code to justify continuation of the criminal
proceedings against the petitioners?
25. Upon careful reading of the complaint, it is revealed that the entire
grievance of the opposite party revolves around the functioning of the
power steering of the vehicle purchased by him. Admittedly, the
opposite party took delivery of the vehicle, used it for nearly three
months and drove the same for more than 5,000 kms before raising
any grievance regarding the steering mechanism. The complaint itself
records that the issue was raised only at the time of the first
scheduled service.
26. Significantly, upon receipt of the complaint, the dealer as well as the
manufacturer did not ignore the grievance of the opposite party.
13
Rather, the vehicle was inspected by the authorised service personnel
and, thereafter, the Regional Service Manager informed the opposite
party through email that the vehicle was functioning in accordance
with its specifications and that the "return assist" feature in the
steering mechanism was not available in the particular model
purchased by the opposite party. Thus, the allegations in the
complaint themselves demonstrate that the complaint was duly
considered, the vehicle was examined and a technical explanation
was furnished by the manufacturer.
27. Upon perusal of the brochure relied upon by the complainant, this
Court finds that the manufacturer has merely described the vehicle
as being equipped with "Electric Power Steering". There is no
representation, express or implied, that the steering wheel would
automatically return to its central position after negotiating a turn or
that the vehicle possesses any particular degree of steering
returnability. Equally, there is no material indicating that any such
characteristic was deliberately concealed from prospective
purchasers. The promotional statements contained in the brochure
are in the nature of general advertising expressions concerning the
vehicle's styling, comfort, safety and driving experience, and cannot
reasonably be construed as representations relating to the specific
steering behaviour complained of by the opposite party.
14
Consequently, the allegation that the petitioners induced the
complainant to purchase the vehicle by misleading advertisement or
suppression of material facts does not find prima facie support from
the brochure itself.
28. It is trite law that the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC
requires the existence of dishonest or fraudulent intention at the very
inception of the transaction. Mere failure of a product to satisfy the
expectation of a purchaser or a subsequent dispute regarding the
quality or performance of goods does not ipso facto constitute the
offence of cheating unless the requisite mens rea is established from
the inception.
29. In the present case, the complaint does not disclose any
circumstance from which an inference can reasonably be drawn that
the petitioners possessed any fraudulent or dishonest intention at the
time the vehicle was sold. The petitioners in no way promised that the
vehicle possessed a “return assist” feature in its steering mechanism.
In the absence of such foundational allegations, the essential
ingredients of Sections 415 and 420 IPC remain wholly unfulfilled.
30. Likewise, the allegations also fail to attract Section 418 IPC. To
constitute an offence under Section 418 IPC, there must be cheating
accompanied by the existence of a legal or contractual obligation to
protect the interest of the complainant and a deliberate intention to
15
cause wrongful loss by breach of such obligation. The complaint
contains no averment indicating any deliberate breach of such
obligation with dishonest intention. On the contrary, the materials
disclose that upon receipt of the grievance, the authorised
representatives examined the vehicle and communicated their
technical findings to the complainant.
31. Equally unsustainable is the allegation under Section 120B IPC. The
complaint merely arrays the manufacturer and its officials along with
the dealer as accused persons. Beyond making omnibus allegations,
there is no material indicating any agreement or meeting of minds
amongst the accused persons to commit any illegal act. It is well
settled that the offence of criminal conspiracy cannot be inferred
merely because more than one person is impleaded as an accused.
The complaint must disclose specific facts from which the existence
of an agreement to commit an offence can reasonably be inferred. No
such averments are forthcoming in the present case.
32. This Court also cannot overlook that the dispute, as pleaded by the
opposite party, is essentially one concerning the quality, features and
performance of a consumer product. Whether the steering
characteristics complained of amount to a manufacturing defect,
whether the model lacked a particular feature, or whether the
advertisements created any misunderstanding are matters which
16
ordinarily fall within the realm of consumer jurisprudence and
contractual obligations. The Consumer Protection Act provides an
efficacious statutory mechanism for adjudication of disputes relating
to alleged manufacturing defects, deficiency in service and unfair
trade practices.
33. The opposite party has already addressed his grievances by filing
Consumer Case No. CC/53/2024 filed in District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Kolkata-1 (North) against the Petitioner no. 1
and the dealer.
34. Criminal law cannot be permitted to be employed as a substitute for
civil or consumer remedies merely because the purchaser is
dissatisfied with the performance or features of a product. The
distinction between a civil wrong and a criminal offence cannot be
obliterated by employing expressions such as "fraud" or "deception"
in the complaint without disclosing the factual ingredients necessary
to constitute the alleged offences.
35. The chronology of events also assumes significance. The opposite
party continued to use the vehicle extensively for over three months
and more than 5,000 kilometres before lodging his grievance. Upon
being informed by the authorised representatives that the steering
behaviour complained of was normal for the concerned model and
that the return assist feature was not available in the said vehicle,
17
the opposite party chose to initiate criminal prosecution. Even if such
explanation is ultimately found unacceptable by the complainant, the
same cannot, by itself, transform a consumer grievance into a
criminal offence.
36. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the complaint has
arraigned the CEO/Managing Director of the petitioner no.
1/company without attributing any overt act or specific role to him.
There is no allegation that the said official participated in the sale
transaction, interacted with the complainant, made any
representation, or had any personal involvement in the alleged acts
complained of. The mere fact that a person occupies a high
managerial position in a company cannot render him vicariously
liable for alleged criminal acts of the company in the absence of a
statutory provision creating such liability or specific allegations
demonstrating his active participation in the commission of the
offence. Criminal law does not recognise vicarious liability unless
expressly provided by statute.
37. The allegations contained in the complaint, therefore, even if accepted
in their entirety, disclose at best a dispute relating to the features or
performance of the vehicle. They do not disclose the essential
ingredients of dishonest inducement, fraudulent intention from the
inception, criminal conspiracy or intentional deception as
18
contemplated under Sections 418, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal
Code.
38. In Pepsi Foods v. Special Judicial Magistrate (Supra) , the Hon’ble
Supreme Court observed:
“28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious
matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of
course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two
witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have
the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate
summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his
mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto.
He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the
complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in
support thereof and would that be sufficient for the
complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the
accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at
the time of recording of preliminary evidence before
summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully
scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even
himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses
to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations
or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie
committed by all or any of the accused.”
39. Judgment relied upon by the learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the Petitioners in the case of Ford India Ltd. & Anr. Vs.
Sunbeam Ancillary P. Ltd. (Supra) is squarely applicable in the
present facts and circumstances of this case. In the said case,
particularly at paragraph 12, the Hon’ble Court held as under: -
“12. The criminal complaint ‘therefore’ prima facie indicates
that this was a case of supply of defective goods, the remedy
19
for which lay under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
(‘CPA’). This Court was informed during the course of
arguments that such a complaint under the CPA is pending
adjudication. The essential ingredients of cheating as defined
under Section 415, IPC and made punishable under Sections
417 and 420, IPC cannot be said to have been made out in
the instant case. This Court is satisfied that “the
uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and
the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose
the commission of any offence and make out a case against
the accused”. The test laid down by the Supreme Court in
Bhajan Lal can be said to be satisfied in the present case.
The Court is also satisfied that given the nature of the
averments made in the complaint, it would not serve any
purpose to make the accused go through the ordeal of a
criminal trial which would be time consuming and not in the
interests of justice. As explained in Uma Shankar Gopalika v.
State of Bihar, (2005) 10 SCC 336, a criminal complaint in a
matter of this nature is an abuse of the process of law. The
decisions in Hotline Teletubes and Components v. State of
Bihar, (2005) 10 SCC 261, and Anil Mahajan v. Bhor
Industries Ltd., (2005) 10 SCC 228 are also relevant in this
context.”
40. In the above backdrop as well as perusal of the other decisions relied
upon by the petitioners in the present case, this court is of the
considered opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings in
the facts of the present case would amount to permitting the criminal
process to be used for resolution of what is essentially a consumer
dispute. Such continuation would constitute an abuse of the process
of the Court and would unnecessarily subject the petitioners to
20
criminal prosecution despite the absence of the foundational
ingredients of the offences alleged.
41. In addition, the learned trial court also did not consider that the
present petitioners’ official and residential address is outside the
territorial jurisdiction of the learned trial court before issuance of
summons against them. The learned trial court should have followed
the mandatory provision under section 202(1) of the Cr.P.C. before
taking cognizance and issuing summons. In other words, it is a good
ground for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners in
addition to the aforesaid discussion.
42. Accordingly, CRR No. 2314 of 2024 is allowed. Connected
applications, if any, are also, thus, disposed of.
43. As a result, the criminal proceedings being C.S. No. 37758 of 2024
(Mr. Vijaynath Jha Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited & Ors.) under
Sections 120B/418/420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending
th
before the Court of the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 19 Court
at Calcutta is quashed and all Orders thereof are hereby set aside
insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
44. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the Learned Trial Court for
information.
45. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
21
46. Urgent photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied for, is to
be given as expeditiously to the parties on compliance of all legal
formalities.
(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)
P. Adak (P.A.)