Tripura High Court
Present vs The Facts Of The Case Are That on 14 December, 2022
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRL. PETN NO.49 OF 2022
Dr. Ravindra Pratap Singh and anr.
Vs.
State of Tripura and ors.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
Present:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. A. Acharjee, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Ghosh, Addl. P.P.
14.12.2022
Order
This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for
quashing the FIR No.36 of 2022 dated 30.03.2022 lodged in
New Capital Complex Police Station, West Tripura District
under Section 420 of IPC.
Heard Mr. A. Acharjee, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners as well as Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P.,
appearing for the State-respondents.
Mr. A. Acharjee, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners submitted that based on the complaint made by
respondent No.2, an FIR has been registered under Section
420 of IPC. Thereafter, the concerned Station House Officer
issued a notice under Section 41 A of Cr.P.C., upon the
petitioners and caused an inquiry. Challenging the same,
the petitioners are before this Court contending that the
case does not constitute the offence under Section 420 of
IPC and prayed to set aside and quash the same. To
support his argument, learned counsel appearing for
petitioners has also referred to the Apex Court Judgment
reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1 titled as Inder Mohan
Goswami and anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal and ors.,
dated 10.09.2007.
The facts of the case are that respondent No.2 has
filed a complaint indicating that the petitioners herein have
furnished a Bank Guarantee for the tune of Rs.21,31,539/-
issued by the ICICI Bank. Thereafter when the matter has
been accepted, in the process of preliminary investigation,
the ICICI Bank has categorically stated to the petitioners
that the Bank guarantee which is referred is invalid and no
such document has been issued by the ICICI Bank.
Now, the question that falls for consideration before
this Court is, as the petitioners being the beneficiaries of
the Bank Guarantee Document which has been produced in
the process of the business transaction, whether the burden
of proof and the duty falls upon the shoulders of the
petitioners to explain in his defence. Since the petitioners
are beneficiaries of the bank guarantee and the said
instrument has been used in the process of transaction, the
Court feels that the petitioner has not made out a case to
say that it has to be quashed as it is not attracting Section
420 of IPC.
The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the
judgment of Inder Mohan Goswami(supra) and
submitted that the litigation is civil in nature and in no way
rises dispute between the petitioners and respondent No.2
in the cause of transacting the business, thus, no criminal
case can be made out.
After perusal of the record as well as the judgment as
relied upon by the petitioners-counsel and after hearing
both sides, this Court cannot appreciate the said argument,
since the Bank Guarantee Document which has been
produced, appears to be fabricated since the ICICI bank
indicates that they have not issued as such instrument.
Thus presenting a Bank Guarantee which is a bogus
document is nothing else but an offence that attracts the
contempt of Section 420 of IPC.
However, the observation which is made is only on the
basis of the arguments that have been advanced by the
learned counsel for the petitioner and it is always open for
the Investigating Officer to cause a complete investigation
and file his final report not being influenced by the orders
passed by this Court in the present criminal petition.
With the above observation and direction, this instant
criminal petition is dismissed.
Consequently, pending application(s), if any, also
stands closed.
CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
suhanjit
