REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.      539          OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6712 of 2007)

M.D. Sonalika International Tractor Ltd.  ...Appellant

Vs.

Dinesh Sharma and Ors. ...Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.  

2. Challenge in  this  appeal  is  to  the  judgment  of  a  learned Single

Judge  of  the  Madhya  Pradesh  High  Court  dismissing  the  Criminal

Revision Petition filed by the appellant questioning the order passed by

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gohad, Bhind.  

3. Backgrounds facts as projected by the appellant are as follows:

On 19.6.2002 respondent No.1 purchased a tractor manufactured

by the appellant from respondent No.3. On 12.5.2003 respondent No.1

filed a complaint bearing No.87 of 2003 in the District Consumer Forum,

Bhind, Madhya Pradesh alleging that the dealer (respondent No.3) had

represented at the time of purchase of  the tractor that the capacity of the

same is 40HP (horse power) and accordingly payment was made but after

some time the applicant came to know that the said tractor is made of

1035 tafe  tractor engine and the model of the said tafe engine is Simpson

S-324 of which power  capacity is  35 HP. It  was thus  submitted that

trusting  the  opposite  parties  and  having  faith  on  the  company  and

believing that the tractor is made of 40HP the applicant paid for the same

where the tractor is not more than 35 HP.   

On 22.7.2003 the District Consumer Forum, Bhind dismissed the

complaint filed by respondent No.1 and observed as under:  

“…on careful consideration it is 40 SAE and not 40 HP in the cash memo dated 19.6.2002 issued at the time  of  purchase  of  the  said  tractor  by  the complainant. The 40SAE power capacity of the said sold   Sonalika D1 740 tractor is shown in the report of  Mechanical  Engineering  Research  and Development  Corporation,  Ludhiana.  As  such  the capacity of 40SAE of the tractor sold and purchased by complainant as per cash memo showing 40SAE is proved  in  view  of  the  above  report  of  Mechanical

2

Engineering  Research  and  Development Corporation.”

On 25.6.2004 after more than 2 years from the date of purchase of

the tractor and one year from the date of dismissal of complaint by the

District  Consumer  Forum,  Bhind,  the  respondent  No.1  with  ulterior

motives  filed  a  complaint  case  No.896  of  2005  before  the  learned

Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gohad, M.P. against respondent No.3 as

well as the present appellant under Sections 120B, 420 and 468 of the

Indian  Penal  Code,  1860  (in  short  the  ‘IPC’).  In  the  complaint  the

allegation made is that at the time of sale it was falsely represented by the

dealer  that  the  tractor  was  of  40  HP capacity.  It  was  stated  that  the

complainant obtained information about the power capacity of the tractor

and came to know that the tractor sold to him is of 33 HP capacity and

the accused persons have cheated him.  In the meantime, on 20.10.2005

the report was called from Central Farm Machinery Training and Testing

Institute,  Tractor  Nagar,  Budhni   by  M.P.  State  Commission.  On

19.12.2005 the State Commission  allowed the appeal and directed the

appellant and respondent No.3 to jointly and severally pay Rs.27,000/- to

respondent No.1.  

3

On  23.3.2006  the  National  Consumer  Disputes  Redressal

Commission  issued  notice  and  granted  interim  stay  of  order  dated

19.12.2005  passed  by  the  MP  State  Commission.  On  22.4.2006  the

Judicial  Magistrate,  Ist  Class  dismissed  the  complaint  of  respondent

No.1. On 12.3.2007 the Additional Sessions Judge allowed the Revision

Petition filed by respondent No.1 and directed the learned Magistrate to

register the complaint case of the complainant under Sections 120-B, 420

and 468 IPC.  

The  High  Court  by  the  impugned  order  rejected  the  revision

petition.

4. It  is  the  stand of  the appellant  that  the prosecution’s  complaint

lodged even if taken in its totality does not disclose any offence so far as

the  present  appellant  is  concerned.   In  the  complaint  there  was  no

allegation against the present appellant who was A-2. Nothing was also

stated in the evidence so far as he is concerned.  

5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted

that the High Court has analysed the position in great detail and its order

should not be interfered with.  

4

6. The  parameters  for  interference  at  the  threshold  have  been

highlighted by this Court in several cases.  

7. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) it has

been observed as under:  

“(1) Where  the  allegations  made  in  the  first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the  allegations  in  the first  information report  and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not  disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where 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.

(4) Where,  the  allegations  in  the  FIR  do  not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.  (5) Where  the  allegations  made  in  the  FIR  or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just  conclusion  that  there  is  sufficient  ground  for proceeding against the accused.

5

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of  the provisions  of  the Code or the  concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or  the  concerned  Act,  providing  efficacious  redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where  a  criminal  proceeding  is  manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is  maliciously  instituted  with  an  ulterior  motive  for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”   

8. A bare reading of the FIR shows that there was no allegation so far

as the appellant is concerned. In any event in the evidence recorded no

specific role was attributed to the appellant.  

9. That being so, the complaint proceedings cannot be maintained

qua the appellant and are set aside.

10. The appeal is allowed.   

…………………………………..J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

…………………………………..J. (D.K. JAIN)

…………………………………..J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

New Delhi:

6

March 24, 2009  

7