Sri Amal Mukhopadhya & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 4907 Cal

D/L15.                             C.R.R. No.1360 of 2012
September                          (Via Video Conference)
17, 2021
   Bpg.

                                  Sri Amal Mukhopadhya & Ors.
                                           Versus
                                   The State of West Bengal & Anr.

                       Mr. Prantick Ghosh.
                                     ...for the petitioners.


                      Mr. Bidyut Kumar Ray,
                      Ms. Manisha Sharma.
                                   ...for the State.


                       At   the   inception   Mr. Bidyut     Kumar   Ray,   learned

            advocate, files the certified copy of the orders of the learned Judicial

            Magistrate, 1st Court, Alipore which reflects that the trial could not

            proceed as the revisional application was pending before this Court.

                       Report along with the certified copy so submitted be kept

            with the record.

                       Learned advocate for the petitioners has filed the

            supplementary affidavit enclosing the death certificate of petitioner

            no.2. Let the same be kept with the record.

                       Learned advocate for the petitioners argues that the

            allegations made in the application under Section 156(3) of the

            Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the charge-sheet which have

            been submitted before the jurisdictional court reflect that the

            transactions arose out of contractual liability and, as such, the

            offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are not

            attracted. It has further been argued that if at all any funds have
                         2




been transferred, the same was in favour of Kalpana Mukherjee,

petitioner no.2, who has expired. So far as the other petitioners are

concerned, there are no allegations against them for the proceedings

to continue before the learned trial court.

           Learned advocate in order to substantiate his arguments

relied upon 2020 AIR SC 765 (Sushil Sethi Vs. State of

Arunachal Pradesh). The attention of this Court has been drawn to

paragraph 7.2 onwards and emphasized that the present case is

squarely covered by the said judgment. In the said judgment, the

facts of the case reflect that there was a contract which was entered

into between the Government and the private company for

construction, supply and commissioning of hydel power project. As

per clause 2(c) of the contract, the defect liability period for the

works was to be for a period of 18 months. The project was

commissioned in the month of July, 1996.         The defect liability

period for the works expired in the month of January, 1998.

Thereafter, the project became operational and started generating

electricity and till 20.09.1998 the project generated 90 lakhs KW

units. The dispute was with respect to the payment of maintenance

by the respondents. To that effect, a complaint under Section 420

of the Indian Penal Code was filed.

The next case relied upon by the petitioners is Hridaya

Ranjan Pd. Verma & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in

2000(3) Judgment Today 604. The fact of the case is that the

appellants agreed to sell the land for a consideration of Rs.16 lakhs.

The respondents therein paid a sum of Rs.11 lakhs. On such

factual background, the case was registered for dishonour of three

cheques and the case was registered under Sections 406/420/120B

of the Indian Penal Code.

The judgments so relied upon by the petitioners are on a

different set of factual background. The first one being on the issue

of maintenance where the dispute cropped up and the second

judgment was one where liability of the payment were made and

part of the payment was ensured by different cheques which were

dishonoured.

So far as the present case is concerned, the charge-sheet

which has been the foundation for the challenge in the revisional

application reflects statement of the bank accounts where the

amount has been paid and received. The statement of the

complainant as also the witnesses reflect that there were

allurements for transferring majority stake of the petrol pump and

by such misrepresentations the complainant was compelled to part

with the money.

The revisional application is considered at a stage when

the charge-sheet has been filed and the learned Magistrate has

taken cognizance of the same. In the complaint as well as the

charge-sheet, there are consistent statements in respect of the

petitioner nos.1 and 3 along with the petitioner no.2 (who according

to the supplementary affidavit has expired during the pendency of

the revisional application). The factual circumstances and the

materials which have been collected by the investigating agency at

the time of submission of charge-sheet do not make out a case for

interference at this early stage when the representations are to be

adduced by way of evidence before the trial court.

Having regard to the same, I am of the view that no

interference is required at this stage.

Accordingly, CRR 1360 of 2012 is dismissed.

Pending application, if any, is consequently disposed of.

Interim order, if any, is hereby vacated.

Learned trial court is directed to proceed with the case

and take the same to its logical conclusion within a reasonable

period of time.

Needless to state that the observations made above are

restricted to the disposal of the revisional application and the trial

court should not be swayed by any of the observations made while

deciding any issue addressed before the said court.

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly

downloaded from the official website of this Court.

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)