Tirthankar Ghosh, J. - (1.) The revisional application has been preferred at the instance of the petitioners challenging the proceeding being Case No. C/422382 of 2014 under Sections 420/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) pending before the Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata and the issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest in connection with the said case. The case of the complainant as made out in the petition of complaint is reflected in Paragraphs 6 to 9, which are as follows:- "6. That complainant company in good faith, from time to time, continued to provide to the accused person, different amounts of money which were duly received and acknowledged by accused person to the tune of a sum of Rs. 3, 35, 00, 000/- (Rupees Three Crores Thirty Five lakhs Only), as an advance for the purpose of procurement of the requisite proportion of the ordered material i.e. Calcined Petroleum Coke from Numaligarh Refineries and then supply to complainant company in between 18.12.2009 to 30.04.2010. 7. That thereafter on 02.11.2011 the accused person have been supplied Calcined Petroleum Coke for a value of Rs. 2, 35, 88, 241/- (Rupees Two Crores Thirty Five Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand Two Hundred And Forty One Only) to the complainant company and also refunded a sum of Rs. 88, 50, 000/- (Rupees Eighty Eight Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only), then thereafter a sum of Rs. 10, 61, 759/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Sixty One Thousand Seven Hundred And Fifty Nine) only, remained due. 8. That thereafter complainant company sent repeated emails, reminder letters, letter dated 11.11.2011 and also made numerous verbal requests to the accused person and but in spite of all those efforts they did not pay any hid to repay those due of Rs. 10,61,759/- to the complainant company. Instead of returning the said amount of money, held in trust by the accused persons, by or about the month of June in the year 2012, the accused persons again requested to the complainant company to give further financial support, with a promise, that they would definitely return back the entire amount of money, as soon as possible. 9. That finding no other alternative the complainant company sent a notice dated 08.12.2014 to the accused persons through Advocate drawing upon the personal attention of the accused no. 1 to 5, narrating all the facts and circumstances and therein demanding immediate payment of Rs. 10. 61, 759/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Sixty One Thousand Seven Hundred And Fifty Nine Only) within not more than 7 days from the date of receipt of the said demand notice or else the complainant company shall be constrained to take appropriate legal actions. The said notices were sent through Speed Post with A/D on 08.12.2014 and were delivered at the correct and proper address to the accused persons. Even after due receipt of the said notice the accused persons inspite of received of the said demand notice accused person did not pay any amount to the complainant company."
(2.) Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, Ld. Advocate appearing for the petitioners submit that it is an admitted position from the petition of complaint that there were continuous transactions between the complainant company and the accused company. It is also an admitted position that out of Rs. 3, 35, 00, 000/- (Rupees three crores thirty five lakhs only), only Rs. 10, 61, 759/- (Rupees ten lakhs sixty one thousand seven hundred and fifty nine only) were due for payment. According to him, if the allegations made in the petition of complaint are accepted to be true in its entirety, the same fails to make out any case under the provisions of Sections 420, 406 and 120B of the IPC. The Ld. Magistrate without applying his mind to the allegations made in the complaint erroneously took cognizance of the offence and subsequently issued process against the petitioners who have been arraigned as accused in this case. It was his further argument that as the petitioners were of Guahati, Assam, the Ld. Magistrate ought to have abided by the provisions of Section 202 of the CrPC. In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgments:- Anil Mahajan vs. Bhor Industries Ltd. & Anr, 2005 10 SCC 228. Hotline Teletubes and Components Ltd & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr,2005 101 SCC 261. Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Anr, 2005 10 SCC 336. Murari Lal Gupta vs. Gopi Singh, 2005 13 SCC 699 Veer Prakash Sharma vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal & Anr, 2007 7 SCC 373. V.Y. Jose & Anr. vs. State of Gujarat & Anr, 2009 3 SCC 78. Dalip Kaur & Ors. vs. Jagnar Singh& Anr, 2009 14 SCC 696. Medmeme, LLC & Ors. vs. Ihorse Bpo Solutions Pvt. Ltd, 2018 13 SCC 374. S.S. Binu vs. State of West Bengal & Anr,2018 SCCOnLine 1741. State of Gujarat vs. Jaswantlal Nathalal, 1968 AIR(SC) 700.
(3.) Mrs. Subhasree Patel, Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the complainant/opposite party No.2 opposes the contentions of the petitioners and submits that once Ld. Magistrate was satisfied with the allegations made in the petition of complaint as also the initial deposition under Section 200 of the CrPC, then only the Ld. Magistrate decided to issue process against the accused persons. She also submitted that as there were disputes raised regarding the transactions taking place between the complainant and the accused/petitioners, there was no scope for conducting further enquiry under the provisions of Section 202 of the CrPC, in support of her case, she relied upon the following judgments:- Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. Vs. Biological E. Ltd. & Anr, 2000 3 SCC 269. Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors,2019 SCCOnLineSC 182.;