- (1.) INVOKING Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner viz., Arjun Das Gupta, Mitul @ Sudakshina Das Gupta and one Abhijit Sinha has approached this Court for quashing of the FIR relating to Goriahat P.S. No. 457 dated September 30, 2012 under Section 420/406/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code. It is well -settled that an FIR can be quashed only if it is found on the face of the allegations made in the FIR together with the materials collected by the police after considerable progress of investigation, no cognizable offence is made out. Heard the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused the case diary.
(2.) IT is contended by the learned Advocate of the petitioner that so far as the petitioner no. 2 and 3 are concerned there is no allegation against them except that all three together running their business. She further submitted admittedly, the parties have the business transactions since 2002 as disclosed in the FIR. She further submitted there cannot be any case of cheating or a case of criminal breach of trust since the entire dispute arose in course of running business transactions and completely a civil dispute has been given shape of criminality. The learned Counsel for the opposite party no. 2 vehemently urged that it is immaterial whether in course of running business transactions the accused person made no payment for the goods, they took delivery from the complainant. She submitted the fact remains that the petitioner no. 1 obtained delivery of goods from the complainant on various occasions on credit and after making payment on some occasions never liquidated the entire outstanding, therefore, it cannot be said no offence has been committed by him. The learned Counsel for the State produced the case diary and submitted in fact during investigation police seized certain documents. One of such document is a diary maintained by the complainant relating to his business transactions, where all dealings with the petitioner no. 1 since 2002 was recorded and each such dealing was endorsed by the petitioner by counter signature. He further submitted it appears from the said diary that since October 2002 the petitioner no. 1 Arjun Das Gupta used to take delivery of saries and other dress materials from the complainant on credit and there is also note that in connection with such transactions from time to time payment was made. He admitted that from the materials so far collected in support of the FIR do not disclose any involvement of the remaining two petitioners.
(3.) I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of the parties. Perused the case diary and evidentiary materials collected during investigation, I find a diary book was seized by the police along with other material. I further find the said diary book was maintained by the complainant in course of his day to day business and in the said diary every transactions with the petitioner no. 1 was noted and same were authenticated by the petitioner no. 1. So far as the remaining two petitioners are concerned, I do not find any materials collected during investigation that they were involved in any business dealing with the complainant except some casual reference against them in the FIR. I further find that the business transaction was going on between the parties during past 10 years and in course of such transaction goods were obtained on credit and also payment has been made for the same on different occasions and in spite of liquidating the existing dues the complainant still supplied articles to the petitioner no. 1 and finally allegedly outstanding accumulated to about Rs. 7 lakhs. Be that as it may although there is huge outstanding but considering the facts such outstanding was accumulated during the course of business transactions for 8 years, it cannot be said on the materials collected during investigation any criminal offence has been made out against the petitioner no. 1 except giving rise to his civil liabilities. So far as the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, I do not find any materials collected during investigation in support of the allegations made against them in the FIR. For the reasons state above, this criminal revision stands allowed and the FIR against the petitioners stands quashed. However, this order will not preclude the private opposite party no. 1 to proceed against the petitioner for recovery of the alleged outstanding in accordance with law. Criminal Section is directed to deliver urgent xerox certified copy of this order to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.;