ASHIM KUMAR ROY, J. - (1.) INVOKING section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner has approached this court for quashing of a charge sheet relating to the offence punishable under section 420/120B IPC relating to Lake Police Station Case No. 249 of 2006. Quashing has been sought for essentially on the ground that out of the allegations made in the FIR and the materials collected during investigation, no offence of cheating has been made out against this petitioner.
(2.) THE learned advocate of the petitioner vehemently contended that there is no allegation that on the representation made by the petitioner any amount of money was either paid to him or anyone else. The allegation subsequent to such payment the petitioner came to the scene at the time of execution of memorandum of understanding and assured that he shall look after the vehicle which will be purchased out of the money already paid to the co - accused against necessary charges will not make him liable for an offence of cheating. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the de facto complainant vehemently contended that the offence of cheating has two parts, when the property is parted with and also when the same was retained. He further submitted in respect of self -same property offence of cheating can be committed twice. It is his contention the accused no. 1 committed the offence of cheating when he obtained the money by dishonestly making false representation and the accused no. 2 committed the offence in conspiracy with the accused no. 1 when he confirmed the terms of memorandum of understanding and assured the de facto complainant that he will look after the vehicle and the profit that would be earned by plying the same would be divided among themselves in terms of the M.O.U.
(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the State produced the case diary and submitted that one Sanjay Kanoria is the principal accused who obtained a sum of Rs. 3.25 lakhs by a account payee cheque as the seed money for purchasing a Volvo Trailor by obtaining a bank loan of Rs. 31.87 lakhs and then entered into a memorandum of understanding that the said vehicle will be plied on hire at Nagpur by the accused no. 2 the petitioner herein and whatever profit that would be earned out of that the same will be divided in equal share between the accused no. 1 and the de facto complainant and 10% of the profit would be paid to the present petitioner as his share and further submitted that so far as the petitioner is concerned there is no allegation except that he was a confirming party to the memorandum of understanding.;