The main legal point established is that the actions of the accused, including failure to fulfill the terms of an agreement and dishonored cheques, can demonstrate the required criminal intention to support a charge under Sections 406/420 IPC.

SUBHASIS DASGUPTA, J.

1. This revisional application is for quashing of a proceeding in connection with complaint case 538 of 2015 under Sections 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Asansol, Paschim Bardhaman.

2. Learned advocate for the revisionist submitted that in the instant prosecution, an endeavour was undertaken to convert a civil litigation into a criminal case for having committed breach of the promise with respect to the terms of the agreement already entered into between the parties. Thus according to revisionist, the criminal intention, being the crux of the offence complained of, not being existed at the time, when the agreement was entered into between the parties the continuation of the proceeding under Sections 406/420 of the IPC will be an abuse of process of the Court for want of required intention so as to establish the culpability, as against the revisionist.

3. Learned advocate, Mr. Panda representing the State submitted repelling the contention of the revisionist that the required criminal intention to cheat the complainant existed at the very beginning of the transaction when the revisionist proceeded to obtain bank loan submitting the property documents of complainant/opposite party No.2 to bank after entering into an agreement with terms that in the event if the property documents of the complainant were not returned within six month from the date of sanction of the loan, the revisionist would pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- every month to the complainant/opposite party No.2 towards compensation. Thus according to State, revisionist even after getting back the property documents from the bank did not return the same to complainant/opposite party No.2 together with the amount of compensation, supposed to be given to complainant, which was sufficient to demonstrate the required intention of revisionist to cheat the complainant/opposite party no.2

4. To address the issue now raises by the revisionist in support of the prayer for quashing some salient facts may be adverted to.

5. Complainant, Md. Abdus Salam had a close acquaintance with revisionist and his wife as well. The revisionist approached complainant, Md. Abdus Salam to become a collateral security in connection with a cash credit facility to be obtained by revisionist from a bank concerned after entering into an agreement there for. A plea was set up that the revisionist was not having the property documents readily available, and as a result of which, the bank, supposed to give lone to revisionist, showed its reluctantly. The complainant, Md. Abdus Salam, being persuaded by the request agreed to stand collateral security enabling the revisionist to obtain cash credit facility from bank depositing the title deeds of the property belonging to him keeping thereby, the property of the complainant mortgaged to bank.

6. An Agreement was entered into between the parties wherein it was promised that revisionist would return the title deeds taking it back from bank to the complainant within six month from the date of sanction of the loan and, if any, default is caused, in any event, a sum of Rs.20,000/- every month would be payable to complainant Md. Abdus Salam.

7. The criminal intention of revisionist subsequently came to be surfaced evident from his action, when revisionist proceeded to alienate the mortgaged property of the complainant to one builder. Having understood the purported action of the revisionist, a civil suit being Title Suit No. 209 of 2007 was filed by complainant Mr. Abdus Salam in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) 1st Court at Asansol.

8. Receiving the summons, the revisionist approached the complainant/opposite party no.2 with an assurance to give back the title deeds. The complainant/opposite party after being influenced by the assurance of the revisionist withdrew the title suit receiving two cheques from revisionist, which were ultimately dishonoured. Even a