- (1.) The present case arises out of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for quashing the criminal proceeding of Nandakumar P.S. Case No. 131 of 2006 dated 17.12.2006 corresponding to G.R. case No. 853 of 2006 under Sections 420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code which is pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purba Medinipur. The relevant facts of the present case are, in a nutshell, as follows: O.P. No. 2 herein as defacto complainant filed a petition of complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purba Medinipur which was sent to the O.C., Nandakumar P.S. for investigation after treating that same as FIR under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, Nandakumar P.S. case No. 131 of 2006 dated 17.12.2006 under Section 420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code was started. In the said petition of complaint the defacto complainant alleged therein inter alia that accused No. 1 since deceased, was a contractor and the proprietor of one S.M. Construction and accused No. 2 being the husband of accused No. 1 was the main supervisor of all construction works on behalf of his wife-proprietor. In the said petition of complaint, the defacto complainant has further contended that he entered into agreements with the accused persons for execution of jobs and for supplying materials, labours etc. The accused persons in terms of agreements made payments from time to time for running works and also obtained receipts. It has been alleged that in terms of agreement dated 19.2.2005, accused No. 1 being the proprietor issued three cheques which were dishonoured. In the said petition of complaint, it has been further alleged by O.P. No. 2/defacto complainant that in response to his lawyer s notice in the matter of payment of the amount of three cheques which were dishonoured, the accused persons also sent lawyer s letter informing that they paid the amount of the said three dishonoured cheques and they sent photocopies of the receipts in question alongwith their lawyer s letter in support of their contention. It is the case of the defacto complainant that the accused person never paid the amount of the said cheques and the receipts sent alongwith the lawyer s letter were forged.
(2.) It is the case of the petitioner/accused herein that the defacto complainant filed the said case with an ulterior motive to harass them. In this case, the petitioner/accused has alleged that charge sheet does not constitute any offence under Sections 420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, the proceeding is required to be quashed. It is also the contention of the petitioner/accused person that the dispute between the parties essentially a civil dispute and does not amount to the commission of criminal offence.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the defacto complainant/opposite party No. 2 herein in his petition of complaint never stated that the accused persons dishonestly induce the defacto complainant for executing the said agreements and that no allegation whatsoever has been made in the said petition of complaint that the accused persons had an intention to cheat the defacto complainant from the very inception. The learned counsel has further submitted that the defacto complainant/opposite party No. 2 herein in para 5 of his petition of complaint has specifically admitted that the accused persons in terms of agreement paid amount from time to time for the running works and obtained receipts. From the said averment it is evident that no ingredient of offence under Section 420 IPC is disclosed in the petition of complaint. It is further submitted that mere dishonour of cheque issued by the accused person do not constitute any offence under Section 420 IPC. The learned counsel has also contended that the alleged forged receipts which were said to have been forged by the accused persons were not seized by the Police during investigation. The said receipts are required for just and proper adjudication of the instant case, because in absence of such receipts, it cannot be said that there was any forgery in the receipts in question.;