Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Chirag Hasmukh Khatri & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 22 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
Appellate Side
Present:
Justice Bibhas Ranjan De
C.R.R. 4214 of 2017
Chirag Hasmukh Khatri & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the Petitioners :Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Adv.
Ms. B Khatun, Adv.
For the State :Mr. Ranbir Roy Choudhury, Adv.
Mr. Mainak Gupta, adv.
Heard on :26.06.2023,26.07.2023,
18.08.2023,12.09.2023
Judgment on : 22nd September, 2023
2
Bibhas Ranjan De, J.
1. Challenge is the proceeding in respect of G.R. No. 376 of 2017
arising out of Bidhannagar (North) Police Station Case No. 89
of 2017 dated 08.05.2017 under Sections 387/506/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending before the Ld. Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar (North) 24 Parganas.
2. The instant revisional application has been filed with a prayer
for quashment of the proceeding mentioned above.
3. The aforesaid proceeding was initiated at the instance of
opposite party no. 2, Subhas Kumar Sharma, by lodging a
written complaint before the Inspector in-charge Bidhannagar
(North) Police Station, Sector I, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064
alleging inter alia that on 30.03.2017 at about 12.15 p.m.
petitioner Mr. Chirag Khatri entered into his house along with
his associate on the plea of visiting opposite party no. 2 who
had undergone a surgery. Though security personnel allowed
them to enter into the house but wife of the opposite party no.
2 did not allow them to meet opposite party no. 2. Petitioner
did not pay any heed to the request of wife of opposite party
no. 2 and she was threatened with severe consequences and
forcefully barged into the bedroom of opposite party no. 2.
Petitioner introduced his associate with opposite party no. 2.
Petitioner demanded payment of Rs. 50,00,000/- with the
assurance of withdrawal of all pending litigation against the
company of opposite party no. 2. Petitioner also threatened
with dire consequences if the opposite party no. 2 did not
fulfill the above stated unlawful demand within next 2
months. Thereafter, opposite party no. 2 asked both the
petitioners and his associate to leave his house or else he
would call the police and accordingly they left the house. From
then on he found the associate of petitioner roaming around
his house and they were planning something dangerous. His
daughter-in-law was also intimidated by one unknown person
regarding payment of Rs. 50,00,000/- otherwise his grandson
will have to face consequences.
4. On receipt of that complaint 08.05.2017 at 21.15 hours
Bidhannagar (North )Police Station Case No. 89 of 2017 dated
08.05.2017 under Section 387,506,34 Indian Penal Code was
started.
5. Ld. Advocate, Mr. Prabhat Kumar, appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has submitted that all allegations made in the FIR is
absolutely false or fabricated just to avoid payment of loan of
Rs. 20 crores which was borrowed from M/s. India Factoring
and Financial Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (for short NBFC) registered
office at Unit no. 201, 2nd Floor, Vibgyor Tower, Plot no- C-62
near City Bank, Bandra-Kurla Complex, and the petitioner is
Assistant Vice President (Debt Department) of the said NBFC.
Upon considering the application submitted by the opposite
party no. 2, NBFC sanctioned a term loan for 10 crores each in
the name of his (opposite party no. 2) Companies namely M/s.
Prity Tubes Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. E-Zones Stripes Pvt. Ltd. total
amounting to Rs. 20 crores against the factored invoices and
some property which were mortgages. Invoices were later
found to be fake and fabricated. After availing the total loan
amount opposite party no. 2 started defaulting on the
repayment of the said loan amount and requested for
settlement. Even NBFC interfered into a settlement agreement.
Accordingly, opposite party no. 2 was to pay a sum of Rs. 11,
36,82,096/- in 84 installments in case of M/s. E-Zones
Stripes Pvt. Ltd. and a sum of Rs. 11,28,18,183/- was to be
paid in 84 installments in the case of M/s. Prity Tubes Pvt.
Ltd.
6. OPW 2 did not honour the terms of settlement and made a
random payment of Rs. 1, 17,00,000/- only for M/s. E-Zones
Stripes Pvt. Ltd. and an amount of Rs. 65,00,000/- for M/s.
Prity Tubes Pvt. Ltd against total outstanding due of Rs.
11,36,76, 096/- and Rs. 11,28,18,183/- respectively.
7. Petitioner met opposite party no. 2 several times and they
discussed on the settlement proposal. During talk opposite
party no. 2 once informed petitioner from Calcutta that he had
undergone some surgery and is on bed rest. Opposite party
no. 2 requested the petitioner to visit him at his residence to
settle the account. Accordingly, along with his associate the
petitioner visited him and had a talk in very cordial
atmosphere over a cup of tea.
8. It is alleged that the filing of FIR was a pre-planned conspiracy
to pressurize the company by implicating its employee to bring
to a settlement amount of his choice. However, the said
account became irregular and classified as Non-Performing
Asset (for short NPA). Opposite party no. 2 and his family
member forged the invoices against which the loans were
disbursed and that is why the case of forgery and cheating
was filed before economic offences wing, Mumbai Police
against directors of E-Zones Stripes Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Prity
Tubes Pvt. Ltd. i.e. Subhas kumar Sharma (opposite party 2 of
this case) Mr. Pratik Sharma, Mrs. Krishna Devi Sharma and
Ms. Prity Sharma (Directors of the Company).
9. No one appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 in spite
of receiving notice through Public Prosecutor, High Court
Calcutta.
10. Ld. Advocate, Mr. Ranbir Roy Choudhury, appearing on
behalf of the State has produced the case diary and submitted
that there was fiduciary relation between the parties and
opposite party no. 2 who took loan of Rs. 20 corers on behalf
of M/s. Prity Tubes Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. E-Zones Stripes Pvt.
Ltd. Mr. Chowdhury has submitted the case wherefrom it is
seen that during investigation statement of family member of
opposite party no. 2 were recorded under Section 166 of Code
of Criminal Procedure along with PA and Accountant of
opposite party no.2, all of them stated about demand of Rs.
50,00,000/- and threat. That apart, during investigation a
complaint addressed to the economic offences wing of Mumbai
as per direction of RBI got revealed that cheques deposited on
behalf of M/s. E-Zones Stripes Pvt. Ltd were dishonored and
returned. During investigation all the documents relating to
loan of Rs. 20 Corers in favour of companies of opposite party
no. 2 sanctioned by NBFC have been collected which, at least
support the sanction of loan in favour of companies of
opposite party no. 2. All documents collected during
investigation prima facie show that loan sanctioned in favour
of opposite party no. 2 was not repaid and classified as NPA.
11. In the aforesaid background if I come to the written
complaint, I find that petitioner and his associate coming from
Mumbai entered into the house of opposite party no. 2 where
security personnel were posted at the gate along with CCTV
surveillance. It is absurd to believe that an assistant vice
president (debt department) of a finance company came to the
residence of opposite party no. 2 at Calcutta and made illegal
demand of Rs. 50,00,000/- and also threatened with dire
consequences.
12. In the aforesaid view of the matter the claim of false
implication to avoid repayment of huge amount of loan cannot
be ruled out.
13. Therefore, such absurdity and malice in the complaint
inspires this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceeding.
14. Thus, the proceeding in respect of G.R. No. 376 of 2017
arising out of Bidhannagar (North) Police Station Case No. 89
of 2017 dated 08.05.2017 under Sections 387/506/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending before the Ld. Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar (North) 24 Parganas
stands quashed.
15. The revision application being no. 4214 of 2017 stands
allowed.
16. Interim order, if there be any, stands vacated and all
interim application, if pending, stand disposed of.
17. Case diary be returned.
18. All parties to this revisional application shall act on the
server copy of this order downloaded from the official website
of this Court.
19. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied
for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all
requisite formalities.
[BIBHAS RANJAN DE, J.]
