Toufique Uddin, J. - (1.) THIS revision arose out of an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the proceedings being C.G.R. 1842 of 2004 arising out of Karaya Police Station Case No. 187 dated 27th June, 2004 under Section 420/406/504 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the learned Sub -Division Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, 24 -Parganas (South). The background of this matter in short is that the petitioner is the businessman. He deals in transportation business from his office at 153A, Muktaram Babu Street, Kolkata -7. On 25th June, 2004, the opposite party No. 2 filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore alleging that sometimes in April, 2003 the petitioner approached the opposite party No. 2 with a request to give two Trucks (Tata) on hire purchase basis and further alleged that the payment of such hire purchase will be paid on easy monthly instalment scheme. The opposite party No. 1 believing such representation of the petitioner, handed over two Trucks (Tata) to the petitioner on hire purchase basis of which one bearing Registration No. TN -07/4636 and another Truck bearing Registration No. WB -23/8926 standing in the name of Raja Carriers on 15th May, 2003 for which two separate agreements were executed by and between the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner agreed to pay Rs. 6,00,000/ - for the first Truck and Rs. 8,80,000/ - for the second Truck payable in 47 instalments one ending in April, 2007 and the other ending in June, 2007 respectively. After taking possession of the above two vehicles, the petitioner's son issued some cheques in favour of opposite party No. 2 for the monthly instalments and the same were dishonoured for the reasons "insufficient fund". When the opposite party No. 2 chased the petitioner for payment, the petitioner handed over one cheque being No. 338659 dated 25.5.2004 for a sum of Rs. 121,16,423/ - drawn on Hongkong & Sanghai Banking Corporation, B.B.D. Bag Branch, Kolkata. In good faith, the opposite party No. 2 deposited the said cheque and it was returned unpaid by the bank for reasons "Account Closed". The opposite party No. 2 contacted the petitioner for payment and the petitioner refused to make any payment and on the contrary the petitioner threatened the opposite party No. 2 saying that he would cause harm to the life and property of the opposite party No. 2 if the opposite party No. 2 takes any legal steps. So the opposite party No. 2 filed the said petition of complaint to the Officer -in -Charge, Karaya Police Station through the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, 24 -Parganas (South). The learned Magistrate, without applying his judicial mind mechanically sent the said petition of complaint to the concerned Officer -in -Charge for investigation. The Opposite Party No. 2 after suppressing all material facts filed the said purported complaint only by making some false allegation by way of distorting the facts and to obtain the order which is on the face of the record is bad in law and in facts for the reasons stated herein below: a) The petitioner took two vehicles as per the so -called Hire Purchase Agreements which were never signed by the petitioner nor any such agreement was handed over to the petitioner for the said two trucks; The Truck bearing No. TN -07/4636 was purchased on 22nd April, 2002 as per the so -called agreement and on the basis of statements made by the opposite party No. 2 the petitioner believing bona fide such statements went on paying the monthly instalments to the tune of Rs. 12,765/ - on and from 22nd April, 2003. The petitioner, according to the detailed chart (mentioned in the petition) paid for TN -07/4636 cash and penalty for cheque returned to the extent of Rs. 1,40,415/ - and Rs. 11,000/ - and also through cheques Rs. 62,530/ -. The aforesaid vehicle was never registered in the name of the petitioner for mala fide reasons of the opposite party. Some cheques were also not returned to the petitioner. The aforesaid vehicle was of model No. 91. Similarly, with respect of vehicle No. WB -23/8926 being Model No. 99, the petitioner paid to the extent of Rs. 74,892/ - and penalty of Rs. 4,000/ - through the cheque Rs. 1,31,080/ - but the vehicle was not registered in the name of the petitioner.
(3.) EVEN after payment of some instalments to the Opposite Party No. 2 regularly, one day Opposite Party No. 2 came to petitioner's office alongwith his sons to extract money. When such proposal was refused by the petitioner the Opposite Party No. 2 forcibly obtained signature on a cheque. The account of the said cheque which was standing in the proprietorship firm whose proprietor was the father of the petitioner and after death of the father of the petitioner on 3rd March, 2003 the said account was closed. For such high -handedness and illegal activities of the Opposite Party No. 2, the petitioner was very afraid of disclosing such fact to anyone as Opposite Party No. 2 threatened petitioner with dire consequences.;