IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Subhasis Dasgupta, J.
Ramesh Chandra Agarwal - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal & Ors. - Respondents
C.R.R. No. 1754 of 2020; C.R.A.N. No. 1 of 2021
Decided On : 09-04-2021
quashing - G.R. Case No. 6166 of 2020 - Sections 420/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code - 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a dispute over an inter-corporate deposit of Rs. 50,00,000 advanced to the petitioner for a period of 90 days, which was not returned as agreed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the investigation stage was necessary to ascertain the fraudulent and dishonest intention of the petitioner, and thus refused the quashment of the case.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's conduct constituted fraudulent and dishonest intention at the beginning of the transaction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a thorough investigation to collect materials and determine the fraudulent and dishonest intention of the petitioner.
Final Decision: The revisional application was deemed without merit and disposed of, with the direction to expedite the investigation.
JUDGMENT
Subhasis Dasgupta, J. - This is for quashing of a proceeding in connection with G.R. Case No. 6166 of 2020, pending before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore relatable to Khardah Police Station Case No. 565 of 2020 dated 15.10.2020, under Sections 420/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The aforementioned case came to be registered at the police station on the strength of an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., passed by learned ACJM, Barrackpore, following receipt of a complaint for and on behalf of Rashi Merchantiles Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as RMPL).
3. RMPL being engaged in the business of Corporate Depositor, on the presentation of petitioner with other carrying then a trade of auto car dealership of Maruti Suzuki, advanced a loan of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakh) in the form of inter-corporate deposit, on 18th March, 2020, to the petitioner being one of the Directors of Premier Car World Pvt. Ltd. for a period of 90 days bearing an interest of 10% per annum to overcome the stringent financial condition, faced by the borrower/Premier Car World Pvt. Ltd.
4. Believing the assurance, the complainant creditor advanced such huge amount as inter-corporate deposit that the such amount taken as loan would be liquidated after the expiry of stipulated period of time.
5. Such amount of inter-corporate deposit was encashed by the petitioner/accused, who also had issued a post dated cheque of Rs. 50 Lakh to the complainant creditor, as a collateral security.
6. Since the petitioner being beneficiary of inter-corporate deposit deliberately declined to return the money, taken as loan after the lapse of stipulated period of time of 90 days, on being requested by the petitioner/accused person, the complainant creditor deposited the post dated cheque, given by loanee petitioner/accused person, to its banker on 16th June, 2020, which was dishonoured by the bank upon receiving stop payment instruction from the beneficiary/loanee/petitioner accused person.
7. The accused person along with other accused persons in connivance with each other induced the complainant creditor by presenting false promises and assurances to part with huge amount of money with a culpable intention of causing wrongful gain to themselves and ultimately embezzled the money to the tune of Rs. 50 Lakh.
8. Ultimately, the case is at the investigation stage, and upon noticing corporate financial fraud involving high value cheating, the investigation of this case was assumed by the Criminal Investigation Department, West Bengal on 22.10.20. This is all about the crux of contention raised against the petitioner/revisionist.
9. Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee, learned advocate representing the petitioner, submitted that it would be very difficult to infer any fraudulent or dishonest intention, since beginning the transaction, from the conduct of petitioner with others that the inter-corporat deposit had been taken with an ulterior purpose and without fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of petitioner, the alleged offence would be incomplete. Mr. Banerjee never disputed with amount, said to have been advanced to the petitioner/accused, as an inter-corporate deposit.
10. Referring some of the bank statements annexed with the instant revisional application, Mr. Banerjee frankly submitted that the petitioner had even deposited interest more than once to the creditor/de-facto complainant company against such inter-corporate deposit in his favour. According to Mr. Banerjee, it was due to the onset and impact of COVID-19, the petitioner committed failure without any deliberate intention to honour the agreement by liquidating the amount within the stipulated period of time. Mr. Banerjee described the pending prosecution to be nothing, but an attempt to pressurize the petitioner for coming to terms with the complainant creditor, so that the money lent out could be quickly recovered upon exercising arms twisting method.
Alpic Finance Ltd. vs. P. Sadasivam & Anr.
Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander & Anr.
Anil Mahajan vs. Bhor Industries Ltd. & Anr.
Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors.
Murari Lal Gupta vs. Gopi Singh
A breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless fraudulent intent is proven at the outset of the agreement, as established in relevant legal precedents.
The court affirmed that a party only involved in a civil contract cannot face criminal liability unless it directly transacted or misappropriated funds, supporting the need for a clear distinction be....
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....
The charge under Section 420 IPC can stand alone and is not dependent on the charge under Section 406 IPC.
In absence of mens rea criminal proceeding cannot survive.
The absence of established intention to cheat from the beginning and the need to make the company a party in cases where a wrong has been done by the company are crucial legal principles established ....
Criminal proceedings should not be quashed at the cognizance stage in disputes involving alleged misappropriation of funds. Such matters require evaluation of evidence at the stage of framing charges....
The ingredients of the offence under Section 420 IPC must be satisfied for a criminal prosecution to be maintainable, even if a civil dispute exists between the parties. The pendency of a case under ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.