2008 INSC 0179
                   SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                               Anand Mahindra

                               Vs.

                            Saudan Singh & anr.

                            Crl.A.No.173 of 2008

                   (S.B.Sinha and V.S.Sirpurkar,JJ.)

                               23.01.2008

                               ORDER

(@SLP(Crl.) No. 3811/2006)

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.5.2006 passed by the
learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench in Misc.
Criminal Case No. 2299 whereby and whereunder an application filed by the appellant herein
for quashing of a complaint under Sections 379,406,420,467 r/w 120-B of the Indian Penal
Code filed by the first respondent, whereupon cognizance has been taken by the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vidisha by an order dated 6.3.1998, was dismissed.

3. Appellant herein is the Managing Director of M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., a Public
Limited Company manufacturing vehicles including one known as Commander Jeep.
Indisputably, the Company has appointed dealers to sell their products. First respondent
herein is said to have purchased one Commander Jeep from Bhopal Motors Ltd. on
19.9.1997. The said vehicle was found to be defective. According to the complainant in place
of new engine an old engine was fitted and thereupon old engine No. embossed. It was
further stated that gear box and clutch plates of the vehicle were not from the original
company and it got slipped once the vehicle ran.

4. We have been taken through the complaint petition. We fail to understand as to how the
complaint petition even if given face value and taken to be correct in its entirety constituted
an offence so as to enable the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to take cognizance thereof
underSections 379,406,420,467 r/w 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and process issued
against the appellant. Strangely enough all the accused persons named in the complaint
petition are stated to be Managing Directors of Bhopal Motors Ltd, Sanghi Brothers and M/s
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. The complaint petition does not name any individual. Summons,
admittedly, therefore would not issued in the names of individuals. An offence under the

                            1                         SpotLaw
Indian Penal Codeparticularly an offence of conspiracy must precede application of mind by
the persons who are accused of committing such an offence. The complaint petition,
therefore, ex-facie was not maintainable. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High
Court committed a serious error in not interfering in the matter as continuation of the
proceeding as against the appellant herein amounts to abuse of process of the Court. The
impugned judgment is set aside. The appeal is allowed.

2  SpotLaw