Subhasis Dasgupta, J. - (1.) This revisional application is for quashing of a proceeding in connection with complaint case 538 of 2015 under Sections 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Asansol, Paschim Bardhaman.
(2.) Learned advocate for the revisionist submitted that in the instant prosecution, an endeavour was undertaken to convert a civil litigation into a criminal case for having committed breach of the promise with respect to the terms of the agreement already entered into between the parties. Thus according to revisionist, the criminal intention, being the crux of the offence complained of, not being existed at the time, when the agreement was entered into between the parties the continuation of the proceeding under Sections 406/420 of the IPC will be an abuse of process of the Court for want of required intention so as to establish the culpability, as against the revisionist.
(3.) Learned advocate, Mr. Panda representing the State submitted repelling the contention of the revisionist that the required criminal intention to cheat the complainant existed at the very beginning of the transaction when the revisionist proceeded to obtain bank loan submitting the property documents of complainant/opposite party No.2 to bank after entering into an agreement with terms that in the event if the property documents of the complainant were not returned within six month from the date of sanction of the loan, the revisionist would pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- every month to the complainant/opposite party No.2 towards compensation. Thus according to State, revisionist even after getting back the property documents from the bank did not return the same to complainant/opposite party No.2 together with the amount of compensation, supposed to be given to complainant, which was sufficient to demonstrate the required intention of revisionist to cheat the complainant/opposite party no.2;