Supreme Court: In a set of two criminal appeals by State of Andhra Pradesh and the second by the GVR India Projects Limited/ complainant against Telangana High Court’s decision, whereby criminal proceedings against manufacturer, Managing Director and other directors of manufacturer/BMW India Private Limited were quashed, the three Judge Bench of Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ. directed the manufacturer to pay Rs. 50 lakhs as compensation, in full and final settlement of the dispute.
Background
The complainant had purchased a BMW 7 series vehicle on 25-09-2009. The complainant faced serious defects while driving the car. When the issue persisted, the filed a complaint for offences under Sections 418 and 420 of the Penal Code, 1860 which led to the registration of the FIR. The manufacturer, Managing Director and other directors were named as the accused. The High Court, during the pendency of the proceedings, allowed the investigation to continue, but stayed the arrest. The manufacturer moved before the High Court for quashing of the complaint under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court allowed the same and quashed the proceedings, but, while doing so, directed the manufacturer to deliver a new BMW Series vehicle to the complainant in place of the defective one.
The Director (Finance & Administration) of BMW India Private Limited addressed a communication to the complainant that in terms of the order of the High Court, inspection and return of the vehicle may be arranged so as to comply with the order. In response, the complainant informed the manufacturer, through his advocate, that he was not interested in taking a new BMW car, but instead was interested in taking an amount equivalent to the value of the car, together with interest.
Order
The Court noted that the High Court concluded that the ingredients of the offence of cheating were not established on the basis of the contents of the FIR.
The Court also noted that the old vehicle was returned to the complainant’s erstwhile dealer. The Court said that keeping in mind the nature of the dispute, which was confined only to a defective vehicle, allowing the prosecution to continue, at this stage, nearly fifteen years after the dispute arose, would not subserve the ends of justice. Hence, the Court directed the manufacturer to pay a consolidated amount of Rs 50 lakhs, on or before 10-08-2024 by electronic transfer of funds.
Further, conditional on the payment by the manufacturer to the complainant, the order of the High Court quashing the complaint shall stand and the direction for the replacement of the old vehicle with a new vehicle shall stand set aside.
[State of Andhra Pradesh v. BMW India Pvt. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1740, Decided on: 10-07-2024]
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
