- (1.) INVOKING Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure petitioner has moved this Court for quashing of the FIR relating to Bidhan Nagar Police Station Case No. 274 dated December 6, 2012 under Sections 420/406/468/471/506 of the Indian Penal Code relating to G.R. Case No. 1183 of 2012 now pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhan Nagar, 24 -Parganas North.
(2.) THE case of the de facto complainant as it transpires from the FIR are as follows: a) Around April 2012, the accused person approached the complainant for selling out one property and by his good behavior and sweet gesture, he gained the confidence of the complainant. b) The property he proposed to sell was one landed property measuring about Four cottahs situated at P -135, Sector -B, Metropolitan cooperative Housing Society Limited Canal South Road, Kolkata - 700105. c) The accused person represented himself as the actual and rightful legal owner of the said property by impersonation. d) The complainant accepted the proposal of the accused person. e) When a deed of conveyance was executed by and between the complainant and the accused person and the deed was registered before the A.R.A. Kolkata and the consideration amount of Rs. 40,30,000/ - was paid to the accused person at the office of the complainant i.e. B -401/402 City Centre Salt Lake City Kolkata -700064 by a pay order. f) Even before the registrar the accused person impersonate himself as the lawful owner and right holder of the said property. g) The accused person was supposed to hand over the shares of the Metropolitan cooperative Housing Society Limited to the complainant with immediate effect but had never done the same in spite of repeated request. h) Thereafter when the complainant went to record her name in Metropolitan Cooperative Housing Society Limited he came to learn the said plot which the accused sold to him for valuable consideration was never allotted to him but actual owner thereof was one Smt. Jharna Dey, and the society never recognized the accused as the owner and the allottee of the said land and in fact the allotment of said Jharna Dey also has been cancelled. i) The property in question actually belongs to one Mr. Bharat Bhura, and he was subjected to injury by the accused person as the accused person obtained loan of Rs. 25 Lakhs from the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur by wrongfully mortgaging the property on behalf of the firm M/s S.N. Engineer and Supplier. Where the accused person is the partner. When the Bank authority prefer the proceeding to obtain the property the actual owner contested the same the debt recovery tribunal II, Kolkata, hold on 14.1.2010 that Mr. Bharat Bhura is the actual owner of the property in question. j) The accused person has made false and dishonest representation to the complainant and in that order he made a wrongful gain by misappropriating Rs. 40,30,000/ - (Rupees Forty Lacs and Thirty thousand only) and in the manner he induced the complainant. k) When the entire incident came to the knowledge of the complainant, he began to knock the accused person for refund of the money, stating clearly the notion that if the things would not be concealed or revealed earlier the complainant never paid the money to him, in spite of several request the accused person flatly deny to pay the money, now a days the accused person is threatening the complainant with dire consequences if he dare to ask for the money. Now going through the aforesaid allegations and accepting the same in its entirety to be true, it cannot be said that no prima facie case has been made out. Those allegations have clearly disclosed commission of cognizable offences and is under investigation by the police and from perusal of the case diary, I find prima facie materials have been collected by the police during investigation in support of those allegations.
(3.) FURTHERMORE , it is an admitted position, petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail has been rejected on February 26, 2013 by a Division Bench of this court in connection with CRM No. 2589 of 2013. The power of police to investigate a case which discloses the commission of cognizable offence is not trammeled by any restriction and in such case unfettered statutory power of the police ought not to be interfered with, by examining the defence of the accused or entering into question of facts. In this case quashing has been sought for on the ground that the dispute between the Bank and the Company of the accused has been settled and the property has been discharged from mortgage therefore, the petitioner's title over the property is no more under dispute. However, according to the allegation, the record of the Housing Society never shows that petitioner had any right, title or interest over the said property. Truth and otherwise of the allegation neither can be gone into at this stage and nor it can be said that this case having a civil flavour is denuded of its criminal outfit. The decision cited before this court relating to the case of Harshendra Kumar D. versus Rebatilata Koley and Others, 2011 3 SCC 351 relates to a case of offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I. Act as no manner of application in the background facts of the case. Where the case against the petitioner was quashed because the aforesaid criminal case was instituted against him even after he resigned from the post of directorship. This criminal revision has no merit and accordingly stands dismissed.;