Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sambhunath Roy & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 28 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
CRR 259 of 2019
Sambhunath Roy & Ors.
Vs
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Milon Mukherjee,
Mr. Jagabandhu Roy,
Mr. Swapan Mallick,
Mrs. Manasi Roy.
For the State : Ms. Rita Dutta.
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Rabi Sankar Chattopadhyay,
Mr. Kaustav Sen.
Heard on : 06.02.2023
Judgment on : 28.02.2023
2
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:
The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of
the proceeding being G.R. Case No. 628 of 2017 arising out of Singur
Police Station Case No. 173 of 2017 dated 07.05.2017 Under Sections
420/406/386/34
of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandernagore, Hooghly.
The petitioner's case is that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are
carrying on Gold business in Hyderabad. The Defacto Complainant
namely Alfazuddin of the present case being Singur Police Station Case
No. 173/2017 and his two sons namely Sarfarzuddin Mallick and
Asaruddin Mallick resident of Singur, District - Hooghly, West Bengal
were doing Gold business and they had business relation with petitioner
Nos. 1 and 2.
In the month of June, 2015 Alfazuddin Mallick and his sons
contacted petitioner No. 1 over phone and disclosed that they had some
antique jewellery ornaments. Alfazuddin Mallick came to Hyderabad on
16.06.2015 and had discussions with petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and
Alfazuddin wanted to sell the antique jewellery ornaments the
photographs/catalogues of which were shown to them and the finance
was fixed at Rs. 95,00,000/-. It was agreed that Rs. 50,00,000/- would
be paid in cash and the rest amount Rs. 45,00,000/- would be
transferred through TRTGS.
The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 who had earlier business relation
had completely believed Alfazuddin and Rs. 50,00,000/- in cash was
straightway given to him and the rest amount of Rs. 25,00,000/-was
transferred through 2 Bank Accounts vide RTGS reference No.
059605000679 belonging to Sarakar Jewellers of petitioner No. 1 vide
RTGS No. 10129250939.
As the opposite party did not deliver the ornaments in spite of
advance, the petitioner lodged a complaint against him with Charminar
Police, Hyderabad.
A memorandum of understanding was executed between the
parties. A counter case was filed by the opposite parties against the
petitioners being Singur P.S. on 2017 stating there in that the opposite
party and his sons were forcefully taken to the petitioner's office and the
son was a holding a revolver and forced the opposite party to sign the
memorandum of understanding out of fear (the case under revision).
On completion of investigation the police submitted charge sheet
for offence punishable under section 420/406/386/34 IPC against the
petitioners.
Mr. Milon Mukherjee, learned senior counsel appearing for
the petitioners has submitted that the dispute in the present case
relates to a contractual obligation and the complaint has been filed
giving the civil dispute a colour of criminal offence.
The present case has been filed by the opposite party making
false allegation just to avoid payment of the settled amount.
That none of the ingredients required to constitute the offences
alleged are present. The First Information Report does not disclose any
prima-facie case against the petitioners having committed the offence as
alleged in the F.I.R. That only to harass and humiliate and to lower down
the business reputation of the petitioners purposely with a malafide
intention in order to avoid payment in respect of the settled amount and
to deprive the petitioners from the legitimate claim, the present case has
been registered against the petitioners by giving a civil dispute colour of
criminal offence. As such having regard to the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, initiation and continuation of the present proceeding is
an abuse of process of Court and is liable to quashed for the ends of
justice.
The opposite party no. 2 has brought to the notice of the court
that the allegations in the written complaint filed against the petitioners
are on entirely different facts.
The dispute between the parties is regarding the sale and
storage of potatoes by using the cold storage run by the opposite
party no. 2.
It is the case of the opposite party no. 2 that as he could not
return the advance given to him by the petitioners for storage and sale of
potatoes, for the fault of the petitioners themselves, the petitioners by
holding a revolver to his head made him and his sons sign a
memorandum of understanding against the will and wish of the opposite
party and his sons.
Ms. Rita Dutta, learned counsel for the State has placed the
case diary.
Heard both sides. Perused the materials on record and the case
diary.
Admittedly there is a civil dispute between the parties
arising out of business transactions. There is also a case and counter
case and this is a revision to quash the counter case.
When the situation is as in this case, the case is fit for
mediation.
Accordingly the matter is remitted to the Learned
Magistrate with the direction to refer the matter for mediation to
the concerned District Legal Services Authority and make all
endeavor to have the matter settled preferably within a month at
that level.
CRR 259 of 2019 is accordingly disposed of.
There will be no order as to costs.
All connected Application stand disposed of.
Interim order if any stands vacated.
Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court
forthwith for necessary compliance.
Urgent certified website copy of this judgment, if applied for, be
supplied expeditiously after complying with all, necessary legal
formalities.
(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)
