R.K.BAG,J. - (1.) The petitioners have preferred this revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of the criminal proceeding of G.R. No.684 of 2006 arising out of Durgapur Police Station Case No.232 of 2006 dated July 25, 2006 under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Durgapur, Burdwan.
(2.) The backdrop of the present revisional application is as follows:- Durgapur Police Station Case No.232 of 2006 dated July 25, 2006 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code was registered on the basis of the written complaint filed by the opposite party no.2 before the Superintendent of Police, Burdwan. It appears from the said written complaint that the opposite party no.2 was attracted by the advertisement published in the Telegraph dated November 10, 2002 by one Dilip Kumar Roy Chowdhury of Acropolish Information Private Limited and the advertisement published in the Telegraph dated November 16, 2002 by M/s. Sarvanik Engineers Pvt. Ltd. wherein the name of M/s. Chowdhury Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner company) was mentioned. The petitioner no.1 Abhijit Chowdhury is the Managing Director of the petitioner company. The only son of the opposite party no.2 was searching for a job having an M.B.A. degree and having proficiency in Japanese language. The petitioner no.1 Abhijit Chowdhury married one Japanese lady Reiko Khuroda Chowdhury who happens to be the petitioner no.2. The petitioner no.3 happens to be the brother in law of the petitioner no.1. Both the petitioner no.1 and the petitioner no.2 are Buddhist by religion and the opposite party no.2 is also Buddhist by religion. It is alleged that the petitioner no.1 and the petitioner no.2 developed intimacy and friendship with the opposite party no.2 as both of them stayed for a considerable period of time in Japan. It is alleged that the petitioner no.1 projected his business within Durgapur Industrial Area and offered lucrative job to the son of the opposite party no.2 in the petitioner company.
(3.) The petitioner no.1 took loan of Rs.12 lakh through four different bank drafts from the opposite party no.2 to meet the day to day expenditure of the business run by the petitioner no.1. The petitioner no.1 also took loan of Rs.3,15,000/- in cash on different occasions from the opposite party no.2 through his brother in law the petitioner no.3. It is alleged that the petitioner no.1 gave undertaking to the opposite party no.2 to return the entire amount of loan of Rs.15,15,000/- within a period of 3 months from the date of last payment on September 7, 2004. It is pertinent to point out that the demand rafts were given by the opposite party no.2 in favour of the petitioner company of which the petitioner no.1, 2 and 3 are the Directors. It is alleged that the opposite party no.2 persuaded his friends and relatives to give loan of Rs.3,90,000/- to the petitioner no.1 for running his business, but the petitioner no.1 did not return the said amount of money within the stipulated period of time. The petitioner no.1 issued cheques in favour of the friends and relatives of the opposite party no.2, but those cheques were dishonoured partly on the ground of insufficient fund and partly on the ground of giving instruction to the bank to stop the payment. The creditors of the petitioner no.1 ultimately gave notice to the petitioner no.1 for initiating criminal proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and thereafter payment was made by the petitioner no.1 by way of amicable settlement of the dispute.;