The Chairman of Maruti Suzuki approached the Delhi High Court to quash an FIR filed against him. In response, the court has directed the authorities to submit a status report on the case. The matter is now under judicial review to assess the validity of the allegations. The court’s decision will determine the next legal steps in the case.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court requested a status report from the Delhi police regarding businessman R.C. Bhargava’s plea to quash an FIR.
Bhargava serves as the Chairman of Maruti Suzuki India Limited.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna issued a notice to the Delhi Police, seeking a response to the plea.
Additional Public Prosecutor Yasir Rauf Ansari accepted the notice on behalf of the State and informed the court that a Closure Report had already been submitted to the Metropolitan Magistrate.
Also Read: Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea for New Arbitrator in Time-Barred Dispute Against Maruti
Justice Krishna ordered,
“The Status Report be filed within 15 days,”
He scheduled the matter for further hearing on March 25, 2025.
Senior advocate Vikas Pahwa, along with advocates Prabhav Ralli and Aparna Sharma, represented Bhargava. The plea filed through advocate Ralli to quash an FIR registered on November 3, 2023, under Sections 466, 468, 471, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Kotla Mubarakpur, Delhi.
This FIR was initiated following a Metropolitan Magistrate’s order on October 31, 2023, based on an application from complainant Praveen Chandra Shetty.
Shetty’s complaint alleged discrepancies in a copy of a State Commission order dated January 11, 2008, which was annexed to Maruti Suzuki’s petition in a consumer dispute pending before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).
He claimed that the order had been forged and fabricated by the company.
However, Bhargava’s plea contends that the discrepancies were inadvertent and innocuous. It also states that the certified copy of the actual order was submitted to the NCDRC on April 23, 2013, well before the NCDRC’s final judgment on September 18, 2013, indicating no ill intent by the company to mislead the court.
The plea asserts that the complaint and subsequent FIR do not disclose any cognizable offence against Bhargava or the company, suggesting it is a malicious attempt to criminalize an “inadvertent error” made by the company’s counsel before the NCDRC.
It further points out that the FIR violates the mandatory procedures outlined in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires such complaints to be instituted by the concerned court or an authorized officer.
Additionally, the plea argues that the Metropolitan Magistrate failed to recognize that there is no concept of vicarious liability in criminal law, as no specific act or omission was attributed to Bhargava. It claims that the Magistrate did not adequately address the findings in the police Action Taken Report (ATR) and did not provide specific reasons for rejecting its conclusions.
Therefore, Bhargava’s plea requests that the High Court quash the FIR and the related order, citing violations of legal procedures.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
