JUDGEMENT
-
(1.) THE petitioner in the instant criminal revisional application sought for
quashing of the charge-sheet under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code
submitted in the Court of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 5th Court, Calcutta
in connection with G. R. Case No. 2462/04 arising out of Hare Street Police
station Case No. 573 dated September 24, 2004.
(2.) IT appears from the various averments made in the revisional
application and grounds relied upon therein as well as from the written notes
of arguments submitted on behalf of the petitioner and the submissions made
in support of this application, during the hearing the aforesaid charge-sheet
was challenged and prayer for quashing of the same has been made on the
following contentions. (a) The basic facts contained in the First Information Report is lacking
of essential elements of offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of
the Indian Penal Code and the materials collected during the investigation
does not also make out any case of cheating as against the petitioner. (b) There is no allegation of initial deception. (c) There is nothing to show about the existence of fraudulent and
dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner right from the beginning of the
transaction in question. (d) Over the dishonour of the self-same cheques five separate cases
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were instituted about
one year eleven months before the lodging of the FIR, which are still pending. (e) In the complaint made under Section 138 of the Negotiable
instruments Act nothing has been alleged constituting an offence under Section
420 of the Indian Penal Code. (f) In connection with the self-same transactions complainant having
received part payment no case of cheating can be said to have been made out
and there cannot be any question of initial deception or existence of dishonest
or fraudulent intention on the part of the accused to cheat the complainant
right from the beginning when the transaction was entered into. (g) The facts of alleged receipt of dues by the accused from Nasik
municipal Corporation was admittedly known to the complainant since
september, 2002 despite that the complainant attempted to make out a case
of cheating nearly 2 years after.
(3.) MR. Uday Shankar Gupta, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner assisted by Mr. Tirthankar Ghosh and Mr. Manish Dougar
submitted before this Court that continuance of any proceeding on the basis of
the impugned charge-sheet would be completely an abuse of process of Court. According to Mr. Gupta not only the allegations made in the FIR has not
contained the basic facts constituting the commission of an offence punishable
under Section 420 of the Indjan Penal Code nor any materials was collected
by the police during investigation to constitute such offence, much prior to that
nearly one year and eleven months back for dishonour of the self-same cheques
six separate cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were
instituted and the same are still pending. He further submitted in the complaints
relates to the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
there was no allegation which constitutes commission of offence of cheating. According to him admittedly as in the instant case part payment has been
made and as such it cannot be said that there was any cheating punishable
under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code has been committed by the
petitioner. Mr. Gupta further submitted allegations that the accused got the
work executed on credit by the complainant on a representation that upon
receipt of payment from Nasik Municipal Corporation all the dues would be
paid and when the complainant came to know in September, 2002 about the
receipt of payment by the accused and inspite of receipt of such payment no
payment has been made to the complainant despite thereof no allegation of
cheating has been made in the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable
instruments Act but a story has been fabricated thereupon in 2004.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.