The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of intention in discerning the offence of cheating and the need to avoid assuming the jurisdiction of the Trial Court by delving into factual aspects in the petition of complaint.

Judgment :

1. Petitioners have approached before this court by filing an application under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the code of criminal procedure praying for quashing of the proceedings of Complaint Case No. C/10607 of 2014 under Sections 420/406/417/418 read with Section 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court at Calcutta.

2. The petitioner, no.1 is a company incorporated under the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 under the name and style of Electrosteel Steel Limited (for sort said company). Petitioner No. 2 was the non-Executive Chairman of the petitioner no.1 company, petitioner no.3 was the Director and petitioner no.4 was the non-Executive Director of petitioner no.1 company.

The brief facts giving rise to the present application are as follows:-

3. The opposite party no.2 filed a petition of complaint before the court of Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate making allegations against the present petitioners for commission of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420/406/417/411/418 read with Section 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of the said petition of complaint Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the offences as alleged and transferred the complaint case to the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court for Disposal. After examining the complainant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Learned Magistrate issued process against the present petitioner to face trial for commission of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420/406/417/411/418 read with Section 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The petition of complaint has been annexed to the present application. Complainant is a company within the meaning of Companies Act, 1956 and carries on business. It was alleged in the said petition of complaint that the accused persons on behalf of their company visited the office of the complainant company and represented themselves to be the Chairman, Director as well as AGM PURCHASE of the accused company and expressed their desire to enter into a fair business deal with the complainant company. Complainant company was induced by the assurance given by the accused company and the accused persons. The complainant company in good faith supplied huge quantity of specified materials/goods to the accused persons as per the request made by them on behalf of their company. The accused persons specifically assured and promised that they would be responsible for payment of the goods/materials supplied to them by the complainant company. The goods/materials were received by the accused persons on behalf of the accused company in good condition to their full satisfaction. The complainant company supplied goods to the accused company from time to time and the accused company acknowledged the delivery of the goods in good condition. The accused company repeatedly promised and assured to the complainant company that the accused company would make payment as early as possible after receiving the goods from the complainant company in good condition. The accused persons issued C-Form in favour of the complainant company.

5. It was alleged in the written complaint that on the basis of the false representation, the accused company deceived the complainant company and the complainant company was induced to supply goods to the accused persons valued at Rs.20,90,047/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Ninty Thousand Forty Seven only) from time to time. After receiving goods of the complainant company on several occasions, the accused company deferred making payment of the goods. It was also alleged by the complainant that the complainant company demanded payment of the goods supplied by them to the accused company on several occasions by issuing letter and e-mail but, the accused company did not pay any single penny towards price of the goods supplied by the complainant. The accused persons in t