Court holds manufacturing defect claims fall within consumer law, not criminal law; summons issued without mandatory inquiry also set aside
In a significant judgment delivered on September 2, 2026, the Calcutta High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated against Maruti Suzuki India Limited and its CEO in a complaint alleging manufacturing defects in a vehicle’s power steering system. The court held that the allegations raised by the complainant, Mr. Vijaynath Jha, essentially constituted a consumer dispute and did not disclose any criminal offence under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 418 (cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may ensue), and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The judgment underscores the principle that dissatisfaction with product performance or alleged manufacturing defects must be addressed through consumer forums and not through criminal prosecutions unless there is clear evidence of fraudulent or dishonest intent from the outset.
Background:
The case arose from a complaint filed by Mr. Vijaynath Jha who purchased a Maruti Suzuki Celerio ZXI MT car from Dewars Garage Limited, Kolkata. The complainant alleged that the car’s power steering did not automatically return to the central position after turning, a feature he claimed was promised during purchase and in promotional materials. After using the vehicle for three months and over 5,000 kilometers, and facing dismissal of his concern by the dealer’s service center, the complainant lodged a criminal complaint alleging fraud and cheating.
Key Findings of the Court:
1. No Fraudulent or Dishonest Intention at Inception:
The court noted that the vehicle was inspected by authorised personnel after the complaint was raised, and the Regional Service Manager informed the complainant via email that the model purchased did not include the “return assist” feature in the power steering. The brochure and promotional materials described the vehicle only as having “Electric Power Steering” without any express or implied representation regarding automatic return to center. Thus, there was no prima facie evidence of misrepresentation or fraudulent intention by Maruti Suzuki.
2. Consumer Dispute, Not a Criminal Offence:
The court emphasized that disputes about product quality, features, or manufacturing defects are matters for consumer protection law. The complainant had already initiated a consumer case before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which is the appropriate forum for such grievances. The court held that criminal law cannot substitute civil or consumer remedies.
3. No Criminal Conspiracy Established:
The complaint failed to allege any specific agreement or meeting of minds among the accused to commit an illegal act. Simply naming multiple accused does not suffice to prove conspiracy under Section 120B IPC.
4. Non-compliance with Mandatory Procedure:
The summons issued to the petitioners were found to be unsustainable as the learned Magistrate failed to conduct the mandatory inquiry under Section 202(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), especially since the petitioners reside outside the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court.
5. No Vicarious Liability of CEO:
The court clarified that the CEO of the company cannot be held criminally liable in the absence of specific allegations of his active involvement, as criminal law does not recognize vicarious liability unless expressly provided.
Legal Precedents Relied Upon:
The court referred to several Supreme Court and High Court decisions, including Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI, Anil Mahajan v. Bhor Industries Ltd., Dr Sharma’s Nursing Home v. Delhi Admn., and Ford India Ltd. v. Sunbeam Ancillary Pvt. Ltd., which underscore the requirement of fraudulent intention for criminal proceedings and caution against abusing criminal process in consumer disputes.
Conclusion:
The Calcutta High Court allowed the Criminal Revisional Application filed by Maruti Suzuki India Limited and quashed the criminal case (C.S. No. 37758 of 2024) against them. The judgment reiterates that mere dissatisfaction with a product or alleged manufacturing defect does not constitute a criminal offence and must be resolved through civil or consumer forums. It also stresses adherence to procedural safeguards before issuing criminal summons.
Bottom Line:
Criminal proceedings cannot be used as a substitute for consumer remedies. Allegations of manufacturing defects or dissatisfaction with product performance do not automatically constitute criminal offences under Sections 418, 420, and 120B IPC unless foundational ingredients such as fraudulent or dishonest intention are established.
Statutory provision(s):
Sections 120B, 418, 420 IPC; Sections 202(1), 200, 482 Cr.P.C.; Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Maruti Suzuki India Limited v. Vijaynath Jha, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2971932
