Vineet Nahata vs The State Of West Bengal And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 1495 Cal

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


Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Bibek Chaudhuri


                           CRR 1635 of 2022
                           Vineet Nahata
                                 Vs.
                      The State of West Bengal and Anr.




Mr. Samrat Chowdhury
Mr. Biswajit Chowdhury
                 ....for the petitioner

Mr. Somnath Gangopadhyay
          ..for the O.P. No.2.

Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury
Mr. Sandip Chakraborty
                 ..for the State

Item No. 02


Heard & Judgment on:         28.02.2023


Bibek Chaudhuri, J.

A queer submission has been made by the learned

advocates for the parties. It is submitted on behalf of the

petitioner that on payment of agreed debt with interest the

dispute between the parties has been amicably settled.

Therefore, the instant matter is listed under the heading "To Be

Mentioned" for disposal on the basis of such settlement.

Learned advocate for the opposite party No.2, on the other hand

concedes receipt of money with interest from the petitioner but

at the same time it is submitted by him that the de facto

complainant is not a signatory of any settlement petition. If the

Court finds that an offence under Sections 420/409 of the Indian

Penal Code could be quashed on the basis of the money with

interest which has been misappropriated. It is open for the Court

to dispose of the instant revision by quashing the criminal

proceeding pending in the trial Court. The ingredients of offence

under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code by which Section

409 of the Indian Penal Code relates to the same kind of offence

committed by special classes of persons, momentary retention

and misappropriation of money makes the offence complete.

Subsequent payment of misappropriated money with interest

does not absolve the petitioner for quashment of a criminal

proceeding.

It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner

that on receipt of money by the de facto complainant the

criminal proceeding in the trial Court will be a futile exercise.

In view of the above discussion, I cannot agree with the

submission made by the learned advocate for the petitioner.

However, the parties are at liberty to raise the issue before the

trial Court and the trial Court shall consider without being

influenced in any way on the observation made hereinabove in

this order.

For the reasons recorded above, I do not find any merit in

the instant revision and accordingly the instant revision is

dismissed.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)