9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 994X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited and Volkswagen Group Sales India Private Limited. The Petitioner claims that they are responsible for the business operations of five automobile brands namely, Skoda, Volkswagen, Audi, Porsche and Lamborghini. 4. The Automotive Research Association of India, which is a research institution of the automotive industry attached to the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises of the Government of India issued a notice dated 04.11.2015 to the Managing Directors of Skoda Auto India Private Limited, Volkswagen India Private Limited and Volkswagen Group Sales India Private Limited, calling upon them to show cause as to why they should not come to the conclusion that the vehicles manufactured and sold by them in India, are in violation of the requirements of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. It was alleged in the said notice that the study carried out by them on limited vehicle models fitted with Diesel EA 189 Engines led them to believe that the vehicles manufactured by Volkswagen, when tested on road, indicate 3-9 times more NOx pollution compared with the tests carried out in the laboratory on Modified Indian Driving Cycle (MIDC). It was also alleged in the said notice t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e filed in C.A. Nos. 4069 and 4086 of 2019. On 06.05.2019 these appeals were taken up along with another Civil Appeal filed by the Inter-Continental Association of lawyers and this Court ordered the issue of notice in the appeals. In the mean time, this Court directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against Volkswagen India Private Limited. 12. While things stand thus, the 3rd Respondent herein lodged a complaint with the S.H.O., Gautam Budh Nagar, on 10.07.2020, alleging that he had bought 7 Audi Brand cars from the authorised dealers of the manufacturing Companies; that at the time of purchase, he got it clarified from the Company that they had not installed any cheat devices in the vehicles sold in India; that however, the authorities in India found out a higher emission of NOx; that even the NGT imposed a fine; that the complainant thereafter realised that he had been duped by the Company; that knowing fully well that their vehicles have been installed with cheat devices, the manufacturer had prepared wrong records and documents; that the manufacturers and the officers of the manufacturers are therefore guilty of various offences under the Indian Penal Code and that ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rial. In a petition for quashing the FIR, the Court cannot go into disputed questions of fact. 19. The mere delay on the part of the 3rd Respondent-complainant in lodging the complaint, cannot by itself be a ground to quash the FIR. The law is too well settled on this aspect to warrant any reference to precedents. Therefore, the second ground on which the Petitioner seeks to quash the FIR cannot be countenanced. 20. The first contention revolves around the pendency of the Civil Appeals arising out of the order of the NGT and the interim order passed by this Court in the Civil Appeals. 21. As stated earlier, two original applications came to be filed before the NGT in the year 2015, alleging that the manufacturers of the vehicles in question were employing deceit devices. The filing of the original applications coincided with the issue of notice by the Automotive Research Association of India to the manufacturers. We have already indicated broadly, in paragraphs 5-10 above as to what transpired before the NGT. 22. The applicants before the NGT did not seek any relief for themselves, as purchasers of vehicles. The reliefs sought by the applicants before the NGT were broad and gen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elaboration is required to show why we cannot agree with the above contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. 30. Section 110(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 empowers the Central Government to make rules, regulating the construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles with respect to all or any of the matters enumerated in Clauses (a) to (p). Clause (g) of Sub-section (1) of Section 110 relates to "the emission of smoke, visible vapour, sparks, ashes, grit, or oil". 31. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 110(1), the Central Government issued a set of Rules known as The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. 32. Rules 112 to 114 of those Rules deal in general with "smoke, vapour, spark, ashes, grit and oil". Rules 115 and 116 deal specifically with "emissions of smoke, vapour" etc., from motor vehicles and "test for smoke emission level and Carbon Monoxide (CO) level for motor vehicles". These Rules correspond to Clause (g) of Sub-section (1) of Section 110. 33. Rule 126 mandates every manufacturer or importer of motor vehicles other than trailers and semi-trailers to submit the prototype of the vehicle manufactured or imported by him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eant to be sold in India, the cars purchased by the complainant were found to contain such defeat devices; and (iii) that therefore, the manufacturer is guilty of commission of various offences. 37. The question whether such devices are installed in the cars purchased by the 3rd Respondent herein and the question whether there was any representation in this regard to the Petitioner, are all questions of fact, peculiar and particular to the 3rd Respondent herein. NGT had no occasion to examine the cars purchased by the 3rd Respondent herein. At this stage no one can presume whether the defence of the manufacturer to the police complaint will be purely on a question of fact or purely on a question of law or on mixed questions of fact and law. If the Petitioner takes a defence that no such devices were installed in the cars purchased by the 3rd Respondent or that there was no (mis)representation in this regard, it will be a pure question of fact, which cannot be gone into in a quash petition. If the Petitioner takes a defence that the installation of such devices, though true, does not violate any law, then it will be a pure question of law. We may be entitled to go into this quest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lled in the vehicles purchased by certain individuals; and (ii) whether any representation was made to the purchasers of the cars in which such devices had been installed, about the emission efficiency level of the cars. 40. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that the substratum of the police complaint is something that is already the subject matter of adjudication before this Court in the appeals arising out of the order of the NGT. As a matter of fact, the High Court has been fair to the Petitioner, by granting protection against arrest till the filing of the report Under Section 173(2) of the Code. We do not think that the Petitioner can ask for anything more. 41. It is needless to point out that ever since the decision of the Privy Council in King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed AIR 1945 PC 18, the law is well settled that Courts would not thwart any investigation. It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on. As cautioned by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) Supp. (1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
