Asit Kumar Bisi, J. - (1.) Mr. Joy Sengupta, learned Advocate along with Mr. Sanat Kumar Das, learned Advocate has appeared for the petitioner. None appears on behalf of any of the opposite parties despite service of copies of this application on them. The affidavit of service filed is kept on the record.
(2.) The present application for revision under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner Khokan Das for quashing of the impugned proceeding being Narkeldanga P.S. Case No. 169 dated 14.7.2000 under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code.
(3.) Succinctly stated the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner and the de facto-complainant are two brothers and by virtue of a deed of partnership dated 7.1.91 they started a partnership business in Hardware goods and their shop is situated at 76/B, Netaji Subhas Road, Shop No. 20, Calcutta-700 007 and the shop was under she name and style of M/s. Gourdas and Sons. The de facto-complainant Subrata Das presently O.P. No. 2 gave a notice of retirement from the said business on 22.11.99 to the petitioner as per the deed of partnership. Pursuant to the said notice, a deed of dissolution of partnership was executed on 10.3.2000 and the de facto-complainant received Rs. 1,10,000/- against proper receipt towards the consideration for transfer of his share in the said partnership business. The present petitioner has been carrying on the said business. The de facto-complainant filed a petition of complaint under Section. 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah on 19.4.2000 whereupon the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Scatdah sent the same to the O.C., Narkeldanga P.S. for causing an investigation after treating the same as F.I.R. under Section 156 (3) of Cr. P.C. After lapse of about 34 days from the alleged date of occurrence the petition of complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C. was filed by the de facto-complainant before the learned Court below. There is nothing in the First Information Report to indicate that the petitioner committed any attempt of taking away the alleged amount of Rs. 1,10,000/-. The aforesaid petition of complaint was filed by the complainant to harass the petitioner. In the circumstance, the petitioner has sought quashing of the impugned proceeding which has initiated on the basis of the said petition of complaint which was treated as First Information Report under Section 154(3) of Cr. P.C.;