A complaint must show a prima facie case of a cognizable offence, and the power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and with caution.

Sankar Acharyya, J.

This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) has been filed by two petitioners Ramesh Kumar Agarwal and Siddharth Agarwal @ Siddartha Agarwal as accused/petitioner in connection with ACGR Case No. 3737/2014 arising out of Behala Police Station (in short P.S.) Case No. 2332 dated 14.06.2014 under Sections 420/406/120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short I.P.C.) pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (in short A.C.J.M.), Alipore, 24 Parganas (South). Petitioners have prayed for quashing of that proceeding. The opposite party no. 2 is de facto complainant of that proceeding.

2. In short, the case of the petitioners is that they are two directors of M/S Piyarelall Import and Export Ltd, a public limited company. That company deals in import and export of peas and pulses and various other commodities. Opposite party no. 2 is proprietor of Abhishek Food Products. In 2008, business transaction between that company and the opposite party no. 2 started and it was continuing through several transactions. In course of such continuous usual business transactions the opposite party no. 2 approached the said company through one broker Ramanlal Sirsawa, who has also been made accused in the criminal proceeding, for purchasing 100 metric tons of yellow peas @ Rs.19,500/- per metric ton and the company agreed to sell upon making entire payment. The opposite party no. 2 made default in keeping the promise and the company was compelled to sell out the yellow peas at a lower rate and sustained huge loss. The company served lawyer's letter dated 26.02.2014 on the opposite party and then filed Money Suit No. 119 of 2014 before the learned Judge, 7th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta claiming decree for recovery of company's loss of Rs.5,80,635 and interest thereon against the opposite party no. 2. After receiving notice of that suit suppressing all material facts the opposite party no. 2 lodged a complaint against the petitioners and aforesaid broker Ramanlal Sirsawa as three accused persons under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. which was treated a FIR of the criminal proceeding in question. Filing a copy of the plaint of the Money Suit and certified copy of the FIR of the criminal proceeding with the application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners have alleged that the criminal proceeding has been initiated by the opposite party no. 2 as counterblast to the civil suit filed by the company against him. Petitioners have claimed in substance that in the petition of complaint which has been treated as FIR the essential requirements of the offences of criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust and cheating are absent stating inter alia, that mere mention of the Sections and the language of those sections is not the be all and end all of the matter and it is required to be brought to the notice of the Court the particulars of the alleged offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing the offence.

3. The averments of the complaint, treated as FIR under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C. speak in substance that there is no mention of any particular event or transaction or particular date of any incident of any transaction. Inter alia, it has been stated in complaint that there were many business transactions and good relation between complainant and accused persons in respect of business of yellow peas. Complainant/opposite party no. 2 used to issue advance cheques in respect of supply of yellow peas and the accused persons (including the petitioners of this case) used to supply yellow peas to petitioner as per invoice. Said transactions were done on the basis of convincing power and upon good belief and trust for the purpose of business transaction and by inducement of the accused persons. Lastly as per ledger balance in the year ended on 31st March, 2012 it revealed that outstanding dues stand