ORIGINAL JURISDICTION - Orissa High Court

128
agreed to purchase the car in question. According to the complainant,
the petitioners had promised to give a cash discount of Rs.30,000/- on the
prevailing quoted sale price, which the complainant was yet to receive and
further the petitioners had promised to give the complainant a Multi CD
changer Music system having remote control of a branded Company which
was not provided at the time of delivery and instead, a music system of
cheaper quality without any remote control facility was given. The
accessories as promised by the petitioners were not provided to the
complainant. According to the complainant, the petitioners had not given the
invoice of sale of the car in the name of the complainant, on the date of
delivery but was given at a later point of time for which the complainant had
M/S.MAHAVIR AUTO DIAGNOSTIC PVT. -V- M.AIYER [B.P.RAY,J.]
to incur an additional cost for registration of the car. According to the
complainant, the accused persons had promised to exchange the car with
future model of the said company for which written documents though
promised were not provided. The complainant also alleged that the
petitioners had also refused to honour their commitment of taking Opel car of
the complainant at an exchange offer of pre-designated price of Rs.2.5
lakhs, but offered at a lower price of about Rs.1.5 lakhs as maximum and
thereby they committed criminal breach of trust. According to the
complainant, the entire transaction of selling new Skoda Car by the
petitioners to the complainant was based on promise of the petitioners to
exchange the Opel Corsa Car of the petitioner along with the differential
value with that of the New Skoda Car. According to the complainant, though
he had purchased the car in question from the petitioners, yet the petitioners
refused to keep their compromise and thereby cheated the complainant. On
the basis of these averments the complainant having been filed, the initial
statement of the complainant was recorded on 18.1.2007. After recording of
the initial statement of the complainant, the complainant filed a petition for
time for which the learned Magistrate granted time till 22.1.2007 for further
enquiry. It appears that the case was taken up on 2.2.2007 and no enquiry
was undertaken inasmuch as no witness was examined on behalf of the
complainant. On that date learned Magistrate on perusal of the complaint
petition, initial statement of the complainant took cognizance of the offence
u/s.420/34, IPC by the impugned order. The said order is impugned in this
application u/s. 482, Cr. P.C.
3. I have heard Mr. Gajendra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners
and Sri Roy, learned counsel appearing for the opp.party. In the instant case
learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence u/s. 420, IPC.
Cheating is defined in Section 415, IPC and is punishable u/s.420, IPC.
Section 415,I.P.C. is set out below for reference:
“ 415. Cheating.- Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently
or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property