MOHAN MUKHERJEE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four revisional applications heard together seek to quash two proceedings, being G.R. Case No. 1210 of 1978 and G.R. Case No. 1510 of 1978, both pending before the learned Chief Judicia1 Magistrate of Hooghly. It appears that Charge has been framed under section 420/120B I.P.C. in both the cases against the petitioners which according to the learned Advocate for the petitioners, should not have been framed because the matter in dispute was a civil one and further there was no evidence of any inducement made by any of the petitioners. Another ground taken on behalf of the petitioners was that much more than three years have been taken to complete the investigation and as such, the investigation should have been stopped in accordance with the provisions of section 167(5), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(2.) After hearing the learned Advocates for all the parties and on perusal of the record it does not appear that there is any ground for interference by this Court. Regarding absence of inducement it is noticed that according to the prosecution which is supported by statements of some of the witnesses recorded under section 161, Cr. P.C., the defacto complainants were assured of dealership or employment by the accused persons if the former agreed to purchase shares of a certain company. This, no doubt constitutes inducement at least for the limited purpose of framing a charge under section 420, I.P.C.

(3.) In support of their contention that the dispute was civil in nature, the learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners have pointed out that civil suits were also filed by the defacto complainnants which were either pending or dismissed for non-prosecution. Mere filing of civil suits by the complainant is by no means enough to hold that the dispute was exclusively civil in nature because it is quite possible that for the same incident there can be both civil and criminal action.