Anirudh Daga & Anr vs Unknown
2021 Latest Caselaw 5555 Cal

    18
8.10.2021

sb

CRR 1831 of 2021 (Via video conference)

In the matter of : Anirudh Daga & Anr.

.......petitioners

Mr. Sekhar Kumar Basu, Sr. Advocate Mr. Satadru Lahiri ...for the petitioners

Mr. Ankit Sharma Mr. Asis Dutta ....for the Defacto complainant

Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Ld. P.P.

                Mr. Arijit Ganguly
                Mr. Sanjib Kumar Dan      ...for the State

Report submitted by Mr. Arijit Ganguly, learned advocate

appearing for the State be kept with the record.

I have perused the case diary submitted by the State as

was earlier directed on 30th September, 2021. The allegations in

the FIR relate to Shibpur Police Station case no. 264 of 2021

dated 12.8.2021 under Sections 120B/420/406/467/468/471

of the Indian Penal Code.

The letter of complaint which was addressed to the Officer-

in-charge, Shibpur Police Station reflects that there was a

commercial transaction between the present petitioners and the

complainant and some amount were paid and balance amount

were not paid. To that effect, paragraph-6 of the letter of

complaint is set out as follows:

"6. That when I asked for return of the balance money, the

accused persons made excuses and kept taking time but never

returned the remaining principal amount."

Paragraph-7 of the letter of complaint refers to certain

cheques which were issued and the same when deposited were

dishonoured. The learned advocate appearing for the

complainant submits that the dishonour of the cheque being on

the foundation of "account closed" along with the fact that the

outstanding amount is huge i.e. Rs. 1,47,15,989/- and the

subsequent claim regarding a particular mall which was made

was found to be false, do not make out any case for interference

by this court. To that effect, the learned lawyer has relied upon

the judgment of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State

of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315,

Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.

reported in (2018) 3 SCC 104 and a downloaded copy of a

recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court being Kaptan

Singh Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. delivered in criminal

appeal no. 787 of 2021.

In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the learned

advocate by drawing the attention of this court to paragraph-80,

emphasised that the parameters stated by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in respect of the interim orders to be passed and the

guidelines set out do deter the High Court to pass interim order.

In Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel case, the learned

advocate relied upon paragraphs-29 to 32 which also set out the

guidelines for interference of the High Court in respect of first

information report so registered at a Police Station.

In Kaptan Singh (supra), the learned advocate relied

upon paragraphs 9.3, 10 and 11. The said case was under

Sections 147,148,149,406,329 and 386 of the Indian Penal Code

wherein guidelines have been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in respect of interim orders to be passed during the

investigational proceedings.

I have perused the letter of complaint which is the genesis

of the formal FIR which has been registered in connection with

the instant case.

I have perused the case diary and found that the

investigating agency is mainly relying upon materials which have

been handed over by the complainant to the investigating officer

of the case. Each case is to be considered on the merits and the

factum on which it is based. Nature of the complaint primarily

shows that there were continuous transactions and a balance

sum was due for which the letter of complaint was addressed to

the Officer-in-charge of the concerned Police Station and Officer-

in-charge registered the case. It has been informed that

subsequently cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instrument Act relating to some of the cheques have been filed

before the jurisdictional court.

Having regard to the nature of the proceedings which are

predominantly on the foundation of recovery of balance amount,

I am of the opinion that custodial detention is not required, until

and unless further materials relating to bank accounts and

money trail of the accused persons are brought on record in

course of the investigation. It would be too early to opine that a

civil dispute has been given the cloak of a criminal proceedings,

but having regard to the details as reflected in the complaint and

the materials which have been collected by the investigating

agency at this stage, I direct that the petitioners should not be

arrested till 15th November, 2021. However, in the meantime the

petitioners should meet the investigating officer of the case twice

a week till the next date so fixed.

List this matter on 10th November, 2021 for considering

further progress of the investigation. The investigating officer

would produce a progress report on the same date.

Mr. Arijit Ganguly, learned advocate for the State is

directed to produce the case diary along with the subsequent

development which has taken place.

The private opposite party prayed for supply of the copy of

the revisional application. Let the copy of the same be handed

over in course of the day.

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)