The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a prima facie case to be established in criminal proceedings, and the court's authority to quash proceedings if the allegations do not constitute a case under the relevant legal provisions.

JUDGMENT

Subhasis Dasgupta, J. - The court is approached under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of a proceedings in connection with G.R. Case No. 5918 of 2019, arising out of Baruipur Police Station Case No. 1929 of 2019, dated 23.08.2019, under Sections 406/420/506 of the Indian Penal Code, now pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baruipur.

2. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that neither for nonrealization of dues, nor settlement of accounts, nor delayed payment, would attract criminal liability, so as to fasten the petitioners in a criminal prosecution under Sections 406/420/506 I.P.C.

3. According to learned advocate for the petitioners, the contention depicted in the F.I.R. being founded upon a commercial transaction between the parties, the de facto complainant/opposite party no. 2 should have resorted to civil action for his desired relief pointing towards settlement of dues before a competent authority of civil jurisdiction.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioners further contended that the instant criminal proceedings being essentially a dispute, civil in nature, where civil remedies are available, the same should be quashed bearing in mind that the dispute being civil in nature, should not be allowed to become subject matter of criminal proceeding, as a short cut method for obtaining speedy relief, and taking the advantage of instant criminal prosecution, petitioners could not be forced to settle the unsettled accounts, as proposed by the de facto complainant/opposite party no. 2, thereby giving an unlawful gain to the de facto complainant/opposite party no. 2.

5. Learned advocate for the petitioners, while proposing for quashment of the pending proceeding, strenuously submitted that upon reading the entire contents of the F.I.R., dishonest intention neither could be seen to exist, nor could be inferred, in as much as the entire dispute was principally directed towards a failure of business obligation between the parties.

6. Argument was raised by learned advocate for the petitioners that dishonest intention to deceive another person being the crux of the offence under Section 420 I.P.C., which must be shown to exist at the very beginning, i.e., when the relevant business transaction was held between the parties, and such dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner could never be found to exist at the very inception, if the allegations depicted in the complaint, were taken at their face value, and accepted in their entirety.

7. Adverting to copy of F.I.R., submitted to Officer-in-Charge of concerned police station on 25.09.2019, learned advocate for petitioners proceeded to establish that complaint submitted to police station would reveal alleged commission of offence under Sections 406/420/468 I.P.C. etc. by opposite party no. 2 (de facto complainant) and persuaded the court to believe that it was not the petitioners, but opposite party no. 2 himself cheated the petitioners during the course of such business relationship.

8. Upon referring such proposition of law together with the grounds referred above, learned advocate for the petitioners proposed for quashment of the proceeding, now under investigation.

9. Learned advocate representing State/opposite party challenged the contention, raised by the petitioners, submitting that it would not be proper to exercise the extraordinary authority of the court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proposed proceeding at this stage, because investigation had not been concluded.

10. According to learned advocate representing State, the instant case would be maintainable in criminal jurisdiction, irrespective of civil remedy available under the relevant provision of law.

11. Learned advocate representing the opposite party no. 2, however, countered the submission of the petitioners canvassing that the presence, or absence of culpable criminal intention on the part of the petitioners would not be ascertainable a