Bombay High Court
Siemens Limited Through Prateep Sarkar vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 15 January, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:2241
P.H. Jayani 09 WP3752.2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3752 OF 2022
Siemens Limited
(Through its Authorised Representative,
Prateep Sarkar Having its registered
address at Birla Aurora, Level 21,
Plot No.1080, Dr. Annie Besant Road,
Worli, Mumbai - 400 030) ..... Petitioner
Vs.
1. State of Maharashtra
(Through Public Prosecutor)
2. Swapnaja Nitin Lakhe
R/o 201, Dattatrey CHS,
Opposite MIDC Office, Chendhare,
Tal. Alibag, Dist. Raigad - 402201
3. BSH Household Appliances Manufacturing
Private Limited,
Arena House, 2nd Floor Main Building,
Plot No.103, Road No.12, MIDC,
Andheri East, Mumbai - 400 093. ..... Respondents
Ms. Lakshmi Raman for the Petitioner.
Mr. Y.M. Nakhwa, APP for the State.
Mr. Pravinchand B. Gole a/w. Mr. P.M. Patil and Adv. Nimish
S. Parakh for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
RESERVED ON : 10th JANUARY, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 15th JANUARY, 2025.
JUDGMENT :
–
. Present Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India and under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeks quashing and setting
1/18
::: Uploaded on – 17/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 08:46:53 :::
P.H. Jayani 09 WP3752.2022.doc
aside of the impugned Order dated 03 rd March 2020, passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court at Alibag in R.C.C.
No.23 of 2020 (Old No. Cril.M.A. No.319 of 2018) thereby process
has been issued against the Petitioner, for the commission of the
alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 417, 420 and 427
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Further, the Petition
seeks to quash the aforesaid case.
2) Heard Ms. Lakshmi Raman, learned Advocate for the
Petitioner, Mr. Y.M. Nakhwa, learned APP for the State and Mr. P.B.
Gole, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2. Perused the record.
3) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with consent of the parties.
4) The facts in brief are that, Respondent No.2 has filed the
aforesaid case arraying M/s. Vijay Sales, Khargar Branch, Navi-
Mumbai and the Petitioner as Accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively. It is
the case of Respondent No.2 that she had purchased a Siemens 8 kg
washing machine from Accused No.1 on 22nd November, 2017 for a
consideration of Rs.37,200/-. At the time of purchase, the Branch
Manager of Accused No.1 had assured the Respondent No.2 that
delivery and installation of the washing machine alongwith demo of
the same would be done at the cost of Accused No.1. Thus, Accused
No.1 was duty bound to do the same for free. That, after purchase of
2/18
::: Uploaded on – 17/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 08:46:53 :::
P.H. Jayani 09 WP3752.2022.doc
the washing machine, the Respondent No.2 asked the Accused No.1
for installation and to give the demo of the machine. However, every
time the Sales Manager of the Accused No.1 was assuring to do the
needful. The Sales Manager also forwarded two cell numbers of
technicians of the Petitioner and asked the Respondent No.2’s
husband to contact them for installation and demo of the washing
machine. In turn, the Respondent No.2’s husband contacted the said
technicians repeatedly but nobody turned up to do the needful. It is
alleged that thus, both accused have committed the wrong by not
doing the free installation and demo of the machine. It is stated that,
since the delivery, the washing machine is packed, therefore, there is
every possibility of rusting and consequential damage to the washing
machine due to the lapse of time and for want of use. It is stated that
the aforesaid approach and attitude of both accused is nothing but a
cheating and deficiency in providing service. Therefore, lastly, the
Respondent No.2 issued a notice dated 26 th July, 2018 and called
upon the accused to do the proper installation of the machine and
give its memo and if after installation the machine does not work
properly, then it be replaced failing which, the Respondent No.2
would be entitled for refund of the price of the machine at the cost the
accused. However, both accused did not comply with the notice.
Hence, Respondent No.2 filed the said complaint case.
3/18
::: Uploaded on – 17/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 08:46:53 :::
P.H. Jayani 09 WP3752.2022.doc 5) On perusal of the complaint, the learned Magistrate noted
that the record does not show that investigation at the hands of the
police is needed, hence, directed the Respondent No.2 to examine her
and her witnesses vide Order dated 16th November 2018. Thereafter,
the learned Magistrate recorded the statement of Respondent No.2
under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and by an Order dated 14th February
2019, forwarded the complaint to police with a direction to
investigate into the complaint under the Section 202 of Cr.P.C. and
submit the report. Accordingly, the police submitted the report.
Thereafter, the learned Magistrate considered the material before him
and passed the impugned Order dated 03 rd March 2020, which
reads :-
” Perused complaint, statement of the complainant u/s. 200 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure and police report at Exh. 5. Heard
learned advocate for the complainant. The complainant alleges
commission of offences punishable u/secs.406, 417, 427, 420 r.w
Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code at the hands of the accused. The
complainant has contended on oath that the accused cheated her by
selling faulty/defective washing machine and failed to
replace/repair the same despite continued pursuance. The record
reveals that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the
accused. Prima-facie case is made out against the accused. There is
sufficient material on record to issue process against the accused for
offences punishable u/secs. 406, 417, 427, 420 r.w. Sec. 34 of the
Indian Penal Code. Hence, the order.
ORDER
Issue process against the accused for offences punishable u/secs.
4/18
::: Uploaded on – 17/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 08:46:53 :::
P.H. Jayani 09 WP3752.2022.doc
406, 417, 427, 420 r.w. Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide
Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Alibag, (-Sd-) Date : 03.03.2020 Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Alibag " 6) Ms. Raman, the learned Advocate for Petitioner, at the
outset, referred the provisions of Sections 405, 417, 427 and 420 of
I.P.C. and submitted that, the allegations made in the complaint are
absolutely vague, scattered and general in nature. She claimed that,
even if said allegations are taken on face value and accepted in their
entirety, they would not even prima facie constitute any of the alleged
offences. She submits that a pure civil dispute, which maximum can
be referred to the consumer dispute redressal forum, purposely has
been given the colour of a crime just as an arm twisting and to compel
the Petitioner to accept the unreasonable claim before said forum.
She therefore urged that the impugned Order of issue process as well
as the subject complaint are liable to be quashed and set aside. To
support the above submissions, Ms. Raman, the learned Advocate has
relied upon the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court :-
(i) The State of Gujarat v/s. Jaswantlal Nathala1.
(ii) Indian Oil Corporation v/s. NEPC India Ltd. and Ors2.
(iii) Md. Ibrahim and Ors. v/s. State of Bihar and Ors3.
1. AIR 1968 SC 700.
2. (2006) 6 SCC 736.
3. (2009) 8 SCC 751.
5/18
::: Uploaded on – 17/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 08:46:53 :::
P.H. Jayani 09 WP3752.2022.doc (iv) Amazon India v/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors4. 7) Mr.Gole, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 on the
other hand submitted that after selling the washing machine the
Petitioner and Accused No.1 both were duty bound to provide the
necessary services to install the machine and give its demonstration
to the satisfaction of Respondent No.2. However, except providing
mobile numbers of the technicians both accused did nothing. This
conduct of the accused clearly indicates that they sold the washing
machine only with an intent to make profit out of said transaction.
Ultimately, both the accused made the Respondent No.2 to suffer
financially as well as mentally. Thus, there is a prima facie case
against the Petitioner and Accused No.1. Therefore, the learned
Magistrate was justified to pass the impugned Order to issue process
against both accused for the alleged offences. He, therefore, urged to
dismiss the Petition.
8) Section 405 of I.P.C. defines the ‘Criminal breach of trust’.
Said Section reads :-
Section 405. Criminal breach of trust.– Whoever, being in
any manner entrusted with property, or with any
dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or
converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses
or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of
4. 2022 (1) BomCR (Cri) 326.
6/18
::: Uploaded on – 17/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 08:46:53 :::
P.H. Jayani 09 WP3752.2022.doc
law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be
discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied,
which he has made touching the discharge of such trust,
or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits
“criminal breach of trust”.
8.1) In Jaswantilal Nathalal (Supra) the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held that, “The term “entrusted” found in S. 405 IPC
governs not only the words “With the property” immediately
following it but also the words “or with any dominion over the
property” occurring thereafter. Before there can be any entrustment
there must be a trust meaning thereby an obligation annexed to the
ownership of property and a confidence reposed in and accepted by
the owner or declared and accepted by him for the benefit of another
or of another and the owner. But that does not mean that such an
entrustment need conform to all the technicalities of the law of trusts.
The expression ‘entrustment’ carries with it the implication that the
person handing over any property or on whose behalf that properly is
handed over to another, continues to be its owner. Further the person
handing over the property must have confidence in the person taking
the property so as to create a fiduciary relationship between them. A
mere transaction of sale cannot amount to an entrustment. …”
8.2) In the case in hand, it is an admitted fact that Respondent
No.2 had purchased the washing machine against the payment of its
7/18
::: Uploaded on – 17/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 08:46:53 :::
P.H. Jayani 09 WP3752.2022.doc
price. Said machine was the product of the Petitioner company. The
said transaction did not involve “entrustment” of any property by
Respondent No.2 to any of the accused. And it cannot, as it was
purely a transaction of sale. Therefore, before alleging the offence of
Section 405 punishable under Section 406 of I.P.C., it was for the
Respondent No.2 to describe in the complaint as to how the
complained act fit in the definition of said Section 405. However, the
complaint is surprisingly silent about such an entrustment. As such,
in the facts, question of attracting the offence of Section 406 of I.P.C.
does not arise.
9) Let us now examine as to whether the alleged offence of
cheating was made out or not? The offence of cheating is defined in
Section 415 of I.P.C. and it is punishable under Section 417 of I.P.C.
When the act of cheating is associated with dishonestly inducing
delivery of certain property by the person cheated, then said act is
punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. In the case in hand, process
has been issued under both Sections 417 and 420. Section 415 and
420 read :-
Section 415. Cheating.-Whoever, by deceiving any person,
fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived
to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that
any person shall retain any property, or intentionally
induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do8/18
::: Uploaded on – 17/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 08:46:53 :::
P.H. Jayani 09 WP3752.2022.docanything which he would not do or omit if he were not so
deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to
cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind,
reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.
Explanation.–A dishonest concealment of facts is a
deception within the meaning of this section.
420.Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of
property.–Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly
induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any
person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part
of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or
sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a
valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to seven
years, and shall also be liable to fine.
9.1) The essential ingredients of the offence of “cheating” are
as follows :-
(i) deception of a person either by making a false or
misleading representation or by dishonest concealment or by any
other act or omission; (ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that
person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention
thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person so
deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit
if he were not so deceived; and (iii) such act or omission causing or is
likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind,
9/18
::: Uploaded on – 17/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 08:46:53 :::
P.H. Jayani 09 WP3752.2022.docreputation or property. To constitute an offence under section 420,
there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such
cheating, the accused should have dishonestly induced the person
deceived (i) to deliver any property to any person, or (ii) to make,
alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable security, or anything
signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a
valuable security. On the same line, in Amazon India (Supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, as to constitute offence under
Section 420 of I.P.C., it must be shown that Complainant parted with
his property, acting on a representation, which was false to the
knowledge of the accused.
9.2) In the case in hand, the Respondent No.2 did not allege
that at the time of purchasing the washing machine, some deception
was practiced upon her and then, with a fraudulent or dishonest
intention she was caused to purchase the machine which she would
not have purchased had she been not so deceived. On the contrary,
the complaint sufficiently indicates that the Respondent No.2 on her
own free will went to the shop of Accused No.1 and purchased the
washing machine, exercising her choice. Thus, Respondent No.2
received the washing machine as a consideration against the payment
of its price. It is not the case that by playing fraud upon Respondent
No.2, the accused party induced her to pay unreasonable price for the
10/18
::: Uploaded on – 17/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 08:46:53 :::
P.H. Jayani 09 WP3752.2022.doc
washing machine. It is also not the case that the washing machine
was completely faulty or non-functioning when it was sold to
Respondent No.2, however, the accused party kept silent about that.
On the contrary, the complaint mentions that the Respondent No.2
even did not unpack the washing machine after purchasing the same.
9.3) Considering the allegations in the complaint prima facie,
it appears that after selling the washing machine, the technical
support provided by the accused party/Petitioner company failed to
install the machine and provide its demonstration on time. As a
result, Respondent No.2 did not get the machine services as its
consumer. As stated in the complaint, when the Respondent No.2
purchased that machine, she was assured that the said technical
support would be free. However, as held in Indian Oil Corporation
(Supra), mere breach of a contractual terms would not amount to
cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at
the beginning of the transaction and in the absence of an allegation
that the accused had a fraudulent or dishonest intention while
making a promise, there is no ‘cheating’.
10) In Indian Oil Corporation (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in paragraph 10 observed that, “…, it is necessary to take notice
of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil
disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a
11/18
::: Uploaded on – 17/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 08:46:53 :::
P.H. Jayani 09 WP3752.2022.doc
prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and
do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a
tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to
irretrievable break down of marriages/families. There is also an
impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal
prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort
to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal
offence, by applying pressure though criminal prosecution should be
deprecated and discouraged. Then the Court referred the decision in
G. Sagar Suri vs. State of UP5, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed :
It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of civil
nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence.
Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies
available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court
has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is
a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on
the basis of which High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this
Section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process
of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be
prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a
5. [2000 (2) SCC 636].
12/18
::: Uploaded on – 17/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 08:46:53 :::
P.H. Jayani 09 WP3752.2022.doc
complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully
aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy
lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end
of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law.
One positive step that can be taken by the courts, to curb unnecessary
prosecutions and harassment of innocent parties, is to exercise their
power under section 250 Cr.P.C. more frequently, where they discern
malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of the
complainant. Be that as it may.”
11) The last alleged offence is under Section 427 of I.P.C.
which provides that “Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes
loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” Section 425 of
I.P.C. defines the ‘mischief’ and said Section reads :-
425. Mischief.– Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing
that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the
public or to any person, causes the destruction of any
property, or any such change in any property or in the
situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or
utility, or affects it injuriously, commits “mischief”.
Explanation 1.– It is not essential to the offence of
mischief that the offender should intend to cause loss or
damage to the owner of the property injured or destroyed.
13/18
::: Uploaded on – 17/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 08:46:53 :::
P.H. Jayani 09 WP3752.2022.doc
It is sufficient if he intends to cause, or knows that he is
likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to any person by
injuring any property, whether it belongs to that person or
not.
Explanation 2.– Mischief may be committed by an act
affecting property belonging to the person who commits
the act, or to that person and others jointly.
12) In the case in hand, the complaint is not claiming that, the
Petitioner caused the destruction of or any change in the washing
machine or in the situation thereof and said change destroyed or
diminished its value or utility, or affected it injuriously. Therefore, in
my considered opinion, said offence of Section 427 is also not made
out from the allegations in the complaint.
13) Now coming to the report submitted by the police under
Section 202. The report states that, police inquired with and recorded
the statement of Respondent No.2 and Mohammad Karamsher,
Manager of Accused No.1. Their statements revealed that, after
purchase of the washing machine, the Petitioner-Company was
informed to install the same. The Manager stated that the
Respondent No.2 phoned at the shop of Accused No.1 on 01/08/2018
and told to send a technician to install the washing machine.
However, the machine was not installed. The said phone call was
made after 8 months of the purchase. Therefore, immediately the
14/18
::: Uploaded on – 17/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 08:46:53 :::
P.H. Jayani 09 WP3752.2022.doc
Petitioner company was informed about the aforesaid grievance of
Respondent No.2. In turn, the Petitioner company informed that
when 2-3 times the customer was telephonically asked as to whether
the technician be sent, the customer replied that, he will inform later
on. But the company was not informed, accordingly. The report
further states that the police sent a notice to Mr. Shaikh, Manager of
the Petitioner. However, none appeared for the inquiry. Thus, the
Petitioner company was not co-0perative in the investigation. In the
backdrop the police concluded that although the Petitioner was duty
bound to install the machine, it did not, hence, it appears that the
Petitioner cheated the Respondent No.2. However, the police report
dated 04th July, 2019 is silent as to how the failure of the technician
of the Petitioner-Company to install the machine is cheating. As
noted above, there is no material indicating certain dishonest or
fraudulent intention on the part of the Petitioner when the washing
machine was sold to the Respondent. Therefore, mere conclusion that
there is a case of cheating but without recording reasons for such
conclusion would not bind the Court to depend upon such conclusion.
14) In so far as the impugned Order is concerned, bare
reading would suggest that said Order is passed only noting that the
Respondent No.2 on oath contended that the accused cheated her by
selling faulty/defective machine and failed to replace/repair the same
15/18
::: Uploaded on – 17/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 08:46:53 :::
P.H. Jayani 09 WP3752.2022.doc
despite continued pursuance. However, this fact is not at all alleged in
the complaint. The police report is also silent on this aspect, therein
the statement of Respondent No.2 has been referred in detail. On the
contrary, in the complaint twice it is mentioned that the washing
machine is in packed condition. The learned Magistrate did not
record any other reason in the impugned Order as to how the prima
facie case is made out against the Petitioner for the aforesaid offences.
Thus, it appears that before passing the impugned Order the learned
Magistrate did not properly consider the record of the case.
15) In Indian Oil Corporation (Supra) the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has considered the following principles relating to exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to
quash complaints and criminal proceedings :-
(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made
in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out the case alleged against the accused.
For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole,
but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a
detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor
an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the
allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining
prayer for quashing of a complaint.
(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear
16/18
::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2025 08:46:53 :::
P.H. Jayani 09 WP3752.2022.doc
abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal
proceeding is found to have been initiated with
malafides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or
where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.
(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle
or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used
sparingly and with abundant caution.
(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the
legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual
foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that
a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the
proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint
is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the
basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the
offence.
(v) A given set of facts may make out : (a) purely a civil wrong;
or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a
criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual
dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking
remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the
nature and scope of a civil proceedings are different from a
criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates
to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a
civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a
ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether
the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or
not.
16) Conspectus of the above discussion is that, the complaint
is bereft of the basic facts which are necessary for making out the
17/18
::: Uploaded on – 17/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 08:46:53 :::
P.H. Jayani 09 WP3752.2022.doc
alleged offences. In the facts, the dispute in question is of civil nature.
As such, there is no prima facie case against the Petitioner of
commission of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406,
417, 420 and 427 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The subject complaint,
therefore, is not maintainable in law. However, the learned
Magistrate passed the impugned Order against the Petitioner without
properly considering the record. As a result, the impugned Order is
not sustainable in law. Thus, the impugned Order and the subject
complaint both are liable to be quashed and set aside qua the
Petitioner. Hence, following Order :-
– ORDER –
(i) The impugned Order dated 03rd March 2020, passed
by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court at
Alibag in R.C.C. No.23 of 2020 (Old No. Cril.M.A. No.319
of 2018) thereby process has been issued against the
Petitioner, for the commission of the alleged offence
punishable under Sections 406, 417, 427, 420 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the aforesaid
R.C.C. No.23 of 2020 (Old No. Cril.M.A. No.319 of 2018)
are quashed and set aside qua the Petitioner.
(ii) Petition is allowed in aforesaid terms. Rule is made
absolute.
PREETI
HEERO
JAYANI (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
Digitally signed by
PREETI HEERO
JAYANI
Date: 2025.01.17
17:51:23 +0530
18/18
::: Uploaded on – 17/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 08:46:53 :::