Jay Sengupta, J. - (1.) This is an application for quashing of an investigational proceeding in Gariahat Police Station Case No. 224 dated 08.11.2015 under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Penal Code corresponding to C.G.R. No. 4980 of 2015 pending before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24 Paraganas.
(2.) The present opposite party no. 2 had initiated a proceeding by moving an application under Section 156(3) of the Code pursuant to which the instant First Information Report was registered. It was, inter alia, alleged in the First Information Report that between 2013 and 2015, the petitioner had taken a total sum of Rs. 116.64 lakhs from the de facto complainant/opposite party no. 2 on different pretexts. The opposite party no. 2 got acquainted with the petitioner as the latter was his bank manager. The petitioner left the said bank HSBC Limited in 2011. It was alleged that in 2013 the petitioner approached the de facto complainant for availing of a loan of Rs. 2.11 lakhs and obtained the sum as loan from him. According to the complainant, the petitioner repaid a little so as to inspire a confidence in the de facto complainant. Thereafter, the petitioner induced the opposite party no. 2 to give her further sums of money, mostly as loan. When the de facto complainant, a senior citizen, asked the petitioner to repay the money, she did not repay and instead threatened him saying that she would entangle him in false cases.
(3.) The Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that while entertaining the application of the opposite party no. 2 under Section 156(3) of the Code, the Learned Magistrate did not follow the ratios laid down in Lalita Kumari s Case, 2014 2 SCC 1 and Priyanka Srivastava s Case, 2015 6 SCC 287. The Learned Advocate for the petitioner referred to paragraph 120.6, clauses (b) and (e) of Lalita Kumar's Case (supra) and submitted that a preliminary enquiry ought to have been directed by the Learned Magistrate before passing a direction under Section 156(3) of the Code. He also relied on paragraphs 26, 27, 29, 30 and 31 of Priyanka Srivastava's Case (supra) and submitted that the averments contained in paragraph 10 of the petition of complaint did not satisfy the ratio. He submitted that the order directing an investigation was passed mechanically and did not reflect any recording of satisfaction on the part of the Learned Magistrate. He further submitted that no document was forthcoming along with the petition of complaint, which supported the allegations. He submitted that the affidavit filed with the application only referred to Section 156 (1) of the Code although the body referred to approaching other agencies. The Learned Advocate further relied on the guidelines framed by this Court in Mukul Roy s Case,2018 SCCOnlineCal 4861. The Learned Advocate further submitted that there is much delay in the lodging of the First Information Report. According to him, the last date on which any money was given is not clear from the petition of complaint. If the cut off date is taken 22.08.2015 as mentioned, there is a delay of more than of three months in making any representation.;