DEBI PROSAD DEY,J. - (1.) This is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the proceeding in G.R. Case no.1552 of 2017 arising out of New Township Police Station Case no.108 of 2017 dated August 24, 2017 under Sections 379/354/354B/368/450/449/451/325/323/376/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 25/27 of the Arms Act pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durgapur on the ground that learned Magistrate has referred the application under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to the police for investigation without complying with the specific directions given in the decision reported in 2015 (6) Supreme Court Cases 287 (Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others).
(2.) Learned senior advocate Mr. Roy appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that in fact the opposite party no.2 and his mother took a loan of Rs. 30,00,000/- from General Insurance Housing Finance Company Limited, but could not pay the said loan amount and accordingly the notice under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was served upon the opposite party no.2 as well as his mother. In reply, the opposite party no.2 and his mother stated that due to demonetisation's and for some other reasons they could not pay such amount. The petitioners thereafter took appropriate steps in terms of the said Act against the opposite party no.2 and his mother. Being aggrieved by such action on the part of the petitioners, who are responsible officers and senior executive of the General Insurance Housing Finance Company Limited, the opposite party no.2 in collusion with the wife of the opposite party no.2 had set the criminal law in motion against the petitioners. On the strength of the application under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 learned Magistrate without adhering the settled principle of law has simply sent the application to the police for registration of First Information Report no.108 of 2017 dated August 24, 2017 under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 25/27 of the Arms Act.
(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Deb appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2, however, contends that the opposite party no.2 as well as his mother had sent reply to the notice given by the petitioners and thereafter the petitioners did such mischief with the wife of the opposite party no.2 in order to put the opposite party no.2 and his family member in such fear so that they should repay the entire outstanding loan. Mr. Deb, however, contends that the investigation has already been proceeded to a great extent and accordingly the police should be allowed to complete the investigation in accordance with law.;