- (1.) The petitioner has challenged the criminal proceeding of G.R. no.889 of 2008 arising out of Durgachak Police Station Case no.95 of 2008 dated October 16, 2008 under Section 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldia by filing this revision under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(2.) The backdrop of the present revisional application is as follows: The opposite party no.1 filed a written complaint before the Officer-in-Charge of Durgapur Police Station on October 16, 2008 disclosing the fact that there was a vacancy of clerk in Ragra High School in the district of Paschim Medinipur and the opposite party no.1 got a letter of interview for the said post. The petitioner was introduced with the opposite party no.1 by one common friend. The petitioner induced the opposite party no.1 to make payment of Rs.2,00,000/- for getting appointment in the post of the clerk for Ragra High School. Ultimately, on getting assurance from the petitioner, the opposite party no.1 paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner and assured payment of the balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- after getting appointment. Subsequently, the petitioner persuaded the opposite party no.1 to make payment of another Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner in connection with the said appointment in the post of clerk of the school. One document of non-judicial stamp paper was executed by acknowledging receipt of Rs.1,00,000/- for the purpose of appointment as a clerk in the said school. The photocopy of the document was handed over to the opposite party no.1 and the original document was kept with the petitioner. Since no appointment of the opposite party no.1 was made in the post of clerk of Ragra High School, the opposite no.1 came to realise that the petitioner and his associates have misappropriated Rs.1,10,000/-. On the basis of the said written complaint, Durgachak Police Station Case no.95 of 2008 dated October 16, 2008 under Sections 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code was registered. The investigation has not yet been completed due to intervention of the court.
(3.) Mr. Santosh Kumar Chakraborti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that no offence is made out from the written complaint treated as FIR and as such criminal proceeding pending against the petitioner may be quashed. On the other hand, Mr. Ghosh Dostidar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 submits that another criminal revision was preferred before this Court at the instance of the opposite party no.2 and by an interim order in the said revision, investigation is stayed. According to Mr. Ghosh Dostidar, the opposite party no.2 is not involved in the incident of committing any offence.;