High Court of Madhya Pradesh

Neeraj Makker and Ors. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.

MANU/MP/0098/2019

14.03.2019

Criminal

Remedy available under Consumer Protection Act does not debar criminal action

Present petition has been preferred under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) for quashment of impugned order whereby the application filed under Section 156 (3) of CrPC by Respondent no. 2 was accepted and directed to Police station to register FIR and submit final report, on the ground that prima facie no cognizable offence is made out from the averment in the application and the impugned order has been passed mechanically without applying judicial mind and the mandatory procedure as laid down by the Apex Court.

In absence of statutory provision, the selling of any goods on higher price is not an offence but if goods is sold on the higher price affixing his price by the seller hiding the engrafted maximum price fixed by the manufacturer or marketing agency, it amount to deceive the purchaser to believe that the MRP is fixed by the manufacturer or marketing company. This act comes in purview of deceiving fraudulently and dishonestly to the purchaser and on account of so deceived the purchaser purchased the goods on the higher price considering that it is the price of manufacturing company while it was very below. Hence, it is amount to cheating.

With regard to provision of Consumer Protection Act, the Apex Court in the judgment of Trans Mediterranean Airways vs. Universal Exports and Another has held, that protection provided under the Consumer Protection Act is in addition to remedies available under other statutes and is not in derogation of any other remedy available under any other law. In the circumstances, it can't be held that because in the Consumer Protection Act, remedy is available, no action can be taken under the criminal law.

So far the procedure part is concerned, an affidavit has been filed with the compliant and necessary document with regard to the alleged transaction has also been filed. Therefore, it cannot be said that learned Magistrate has mechanically without applying his mind directed to register the FIR.

The impugned order cannot be set aside, so far, it is concerned to the Applicant no. 1, however, in connection with the Applicant no. 2, it is not sustainable as there is no averment in the application under Section 156 (3) against the Applicant no. 2. Criminal liability arising out of the action of the applicant no. 1 cannot be fasten on the applicant no. 2 merely on account that, he is owner of the shop, unless there is an averment about his involvement in the criminal act of other co-accused. Accordingly, petition disposed off.

Relevant

Trans Mediterranean Airways vs. Universal Exports and another MANU/SC/1126/2011

Tags : Proceedings Cognizance Quashing of

Share :