Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
V. Gupta Of Messrs Shilpa Saree vs Unknown on 20 March, 2023
20.3.2023
AB
Ct. No.236
CRR 1029 of 2011
In the matter of : V. Gupta of Messrs Shilpa Saree
Ms. Manaswita Mukherjee
... for Amicus Curiae
Parties are not represented despite service of administrative
notice.
Heard Ms. Manaswita Mukherjee, learned Amicus Curiae.
This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure was filed by Mr. V. Gupta of M/s. Shilpa Saree seeking
an order of quashment of the proceeding being C-21250 of 2008
under Sections 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, pending
before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, IXth Court, Calcutta
including the order dated 7th January, 2011 passed by the learned
Trial Court.
Briefly stated that M/S. Shankar Styles Station Private
Limited a company within the meaning of Companies Act entered
into an agreement with M/S. Shilpa Saree and thus the
complainant agreed to supply sarees on credit to the accused No.
1 through accused No. 2, an agent on condition that value of the
goods delivered would be paid by the accused No. 1 by account
payee cheques. The complainant supplied sarees worth
Rs.4,28,973/- to the accused No. 1 through accused No. 2 and the
accused persons issued account payee cheques aggregating to
Rs.4,28,973/- as agreed upon. Out of the aforesaid amount a sum
of Rs.2,20,000/- was realized but four cheques were dishonoured
by the banker of the accused persons. Being requested by the
accused persons the complainant did not initiate any action but
accused persons refused to clear the credit balance. It is
contended that the accused persons induced the complainant to
supply the sarees worth Rs.4,28,793/- and made him suffer for
wrongful loss to their benefit.
Learned Trial Court invoked the provision under Section
200 Cr.P.C. and issued process. From the attending of the facts of
the case it is admitted that out of 13 cheques, four were
dishonoured. Admittedly the parties entered into agreement and
the accused persons made part payment against the goods
delivered to him. Therefore there is no reason to hold that accused
persons had dishonest intention since inception of contract. It is
rightly submitted by Ms. Mukherjee that after the cheques got
bounced the efficacious relief available against the accused
persons was to take out petition of complaint under Section 138 of
the N.I. Act. As there is no ingredient of offence within the
meaning of Section 415 of the I.P.C., I am of the view that it would
be an abuse of process if the petition of complaint is allowed to
remain in force keeping in mind the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court pronounced in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal
reported in AIR 1992 SC at page 604.
Let a copy of the order be sent to learned Trial Court for
information and necessary action.
With the aforesaid observation, the Criminal Revisional
application being CRR 1029 of 2011 thus stands disposed of.
Before parting with the case I record my sincerest
appreciation for the able assistance of Ms. Manaswita Mukherjee,
as Amicus Curiae.
(Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.)
