Fit Case For Exemplary Cost: P&H HC Hauls Up Man Who Filed FIR Against Director Of Jaguar Three Months After Receiving Car With Alleged Defects

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has taken a stern stand on apparent case of "misuse and abuse of the powers by the authorities" at the behest of the complainant who filed an FIR for allegedly receiving a defective Jaguar car against a director of Jaguar Land Rover India Limited (JLRIL).

A complaint was lodged against the director of Jaguar Land Rover Company relating to defects with regard to certain functions of the car. It was argued that the car was delivered by the authorised dealer and there is no "principal-agent" relationship.

Justice Alok Jain noted that the complaint was lodged after a lapse of more than three months and the director had no role with regard to the said delivery of the vehicle.

 "It is an apparent case of misuse and abuse of the powers by the authorities at the behest of respondent No. 2 (complainant) and this Court prima facie finds this to be a fit case to impose exemplary cost on respondent No. 2 and the State Authorities," said the Court.

The Court was hearing a plea of the Director of the JLRIL for quashing FIR against in an alleged case of deficiency in service filed under Sections 120-B, 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

The counsel for the petitioner Abhilaksh Gaind, argued that there was no role attributed to the petitioner or his Company and he has been unnecessarily dragged into this criminal litigation which is apparently a civil dispute.

It was submitted that the relationship between JLRIL and its authorised dealers which sold the car to the complainant, is on a principal-to-principal basis and is governed by the dealership agreement executed between the parties. 

"The Dealership Agreement is entered into on a principal-to-principal basis, the end-customers who purchase the 'Jaguar' and 'Land Rover' vehicles from the Authorised Dealer do not have any privity of contract with JLRIL," he added.

Furthermore, it was contended the Petitioner being a director of JLRIL cannot be summarily dragged into criminal proceedings premised on alleged defects with a vehicle.

On the other hand, the State counsel argued that the director of the company which manufactures the car is vicariously responsible and has been charged on the strength of Section 120-B of IPC.

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that the State counsel could not deny the fact that respondent No. 2 (complainant) took the delivery of the vehicle but did not raise any such objection on the date of taking possession.

Adding that the present petitioner had no role with regard to the said delivery of the vehicle, the judge opined that "it is an apparent case of misuse and abuse of the powers by the authorities" at the behest of complainant and it prima a "fit case to impose exemplary cost on him and the State Authorities."

Consequently, Justice Jain issued notice to the complainant to explain why an exemplary cost may not imposed upon him for abusing the process of law.

The matter is listed for May 14, for further consideration.

Amit Jhanji, Senior Advocate with Abhilaksh Gaind, Siddhesh Pradhan, and  Arun Sharma, Advocates for the petitioner.

Anmol Malik, DAG, Haryana.

Title: Ravi Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Click here to read/download the order