Koushik Das @ Rajdeep Das vs Bidhan Chandra Roy And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 7464 Cal

Form J(1)        IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                    Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
                              Appellate Side


Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Bibek Chaudhuri



                      CRR 186 of 2022
                          With
                      CRAN 1 of 2022



                   Koushik Das @ Rajdeep Das
                              Vs.
                   Bidhan Chandra Roy and Anr.



      Mr. Sobhendu Sekhar Roy
      Mr. Amarendra Chakraborty
      Mr. Argha Banerjee
                 ...for the petitioner

      Mr. Abhijit Kumar Adhya
      Mr. Kalyan Ghosh
                   ...for the opposite party No.1



Item No.26


Heard & Judgment on:          10.11.2022
                                  2




Bibek Chaudhuri, J.

The petitioner is the accused of Complaint Case No.C-475

of 2017 being a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate,

First Court at Barrackpore.

The petitioner has filed the instant revision praying for

quashing of the aforesaid complaint case pending against him.

Learned advocate for the petitioner at the outset draws my

attention to an order dated 25th January, 2022 passed by a Co-

ordinate Bench in the instant revision while admitting the

revision for hearing. It is pointed out by the learned advocate

for the petitioner that the petitioner prayed for quashing of the

aforesaid complaint case alleging, inter alia, that the

complainant /opposite party filed a Court complaint alleging,

inter alia, that the opposite party gave an accommodation loan

of Rs.62 lakhs to the petitioner and in discharge of his part

liability the petitioner issued a cheque of Rs.2 lakhs in favour of

the opposite party. Eventually, the said cheque was bounced

resulting in initiation of Complaint Case No. C-475 of 2017. The

petitioner challenged the very foundational fact of the case

mentioning, inter alia, that the opposite party lodged an FIR in

the jurisdictional police station prior to initiation of the complaint

case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act

alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner time to time extorted a

sum of Rs.62 lakhs, thereby committing an offence punishable

under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, in place the

complainant pleaded that the accused extorted a sum of

Rs.62 lakhs and in subsequent criminal proceeding under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act complainant

alleges that he gave an accommodation loan amounting to

Rs.62 lakhs to the petitioner.

It is fairly submitted by the learned advocate for the

petitioner that the petitioner can only prove his case/defence by

cross-examining the de facto complainant and contradicting his

previous statement over the said sum of money. Therefore, the

petitioner may be given a chance to cross-examine the

complainant in the aforementioned case under Section 138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is also submitted by the

learned advocate for the petitioner that a criminal proceeding

cannot be quashed with the aid of some contradicting statement

made by the de facto complainant in respect of the amount in

question before the police authority resulting in registration of a

police case. If the petitioner is able to prove his defence, either

of two cases instituted by the complainant against him, one

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and

another under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be

permitted to be proceeded.

I find substantial force in the statement made by the

learned advocate for the private opposite party/complainant that

the Complaint Case No. C-475 of 2017 is fixed for cross-

examination of the complainant on 22nd December, 2022.

The petitioner is at liberty to cross-examine the

complainant.

In view of such circumstances, the instant criminal revision

is disposed of permitting the petitioner to cross-examine the

complainant in the trial Court on the next date fixed.

The parties are at liberty to act on the server copy of this

order.

With the disposal of the instant revision, connected

applications, if any, are also disposed of.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)