R.K. Bag, J. - (1.) The petitioners have preferred this revision under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of the proceeding of C.R. No. 203 of 2013 under Ss. 420/500/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Siliguri, Darjeeling.
(2.) It appears from the materials on record that the opposite parties filed a petition of complaint before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri praying for issuance of process against the petitioners for the offence under Ss. 120B/406/420/500/506 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and transferred the case to the court of learned Judicial Magistrate for enquiry under Sec. 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On September 27, 2013 learned Judicial Magistrate issued process against the petitioners for the offence under Ss. 420/500/34 of the Indian Penal Code after conducting the enquiry. I am informed that the evidence has not been adduced by the opposite parties before the trial court before consideration of charge. Now, I have to decide whether the opposite parties have made out prima facie case against the petitioners for the offence under Ss. 420/500/34 of the Indian Penal Code for continuation of criminal proceeding against the petitioners.
(3.) Mr. Siladitya Sanyal, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the allegations made by the opposite parties do not constitute offence under Ss. 420/500/34 of the Indian Penal Code. By referring to the averments made by the opposite parties in the petition of complaint, Mr. Sanyal argues that the petitioners paid Rs. 11.22 lakh in cash and Rs. 1,58,000/ - in cash to the opposite parties for execution of sale deed in respect of three rooms in a building named "Milestone" and the sale deed was executed on March 30, 2013. According to Mr. Sanyal, the two post dated cheques of Rs. 5,00,000/ - and Rs. 2,00,000/ - respectively issued by the petitioners in favour of the opposite party No. 1 were not for payment of consideration money, but as security deposit of the transaction between the parties. The specific submission of Mr. Sanyal is that there was no intention on the part of the petitioners to deceive the opposite parties from the inception of the transaction and the entire consideration money was paid at the time of execution of the sale deed and as such the liability of the petitioners for violation of contract, if any, cannot come within the ambit of cheating. Mr. Sanyal submits that cash credit limit of Rs. 3.7 crore of the opposite parties was reduced to zero by the State Bank of India, Siliguri Court Branch on the basis of conduct and performance of the opposite parties and the same cannot cause any harm to the reputation of the opposite parties before the business community and as such no offence punishable under Sec. 500 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. The gist of submission of Mr. Sanyal is that the opposite parties have failed to make out prima facie case against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Ss. 420/500/34 of the Indian Penal Code and as such continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners is an abuse of the process of the court.;