Prima facie evidence of mens rea for the offence, as indicated by cheque dishonour and non-repayment, constitutes grounds for trial and dismissal of petition to quash the criminal proceeding.

JUDGMENT

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. - The present revisional application has been directed for quashing the impugned proceeding being G.R. Case No.448 of 2019 arising out of Jorasanko Police Station Case No.89 of 2019 dated April 15, 2019 under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.

2. The petitioner has contended in his revisional application that the petitioner is the sole proprietor of 'Pannalal Mahabir Prasad'. The opposite party no.2 has been doing business with the petitioner for a considerable period of time. There were monetary transactions between the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 and accordingly, the petitioner used to make regular payment and provide requisite returns to the opposite party no.2 on regular interval. In course of time, petitioner's business faced financial setbacks and he was in urgent need of financial assistance and as such, he approached the opposite party no.2 with a request to grant him loan of Rs.30 lakhs for enabling him to revive to his plunging business.

3. The opposite party no.2 had taken into consideration the said proposal and due to good business relationship he afforded the said loan through RTGS on November 2, 2017 from Indian Overseas Bank, Lalbazar Branch to the petitioner's account of Yes Bank, Burrabazar Branch. The said loan was accommodated with a condition that the petitioner would repay the sum within a period of 91 days from the date of issuance of the sum and he will pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum in case of failure to repay within the stipulated period.

4. The petitioner in discharging his liabilities towards the opposite party no.2 had issued an account payee cheque bearing no.791236 dated June 2, 2018 to the tune of Rs.30 lakhs in favour of the opposite party no.2 drawn on Yes Bank Limited and at the time of issuance of cheque the petitioner had requested the opposite party no.2 not to place the same for encashment immediately as his business is yet to be recovered from the downfall.

5. On September 12, 2018 the opposite party no.2 placed the said cheque for encashment with his banker and the opposite party no.2 came to know that his cheque has been dishonoured as the signature of the drawer differs. Thereafter, on October 6, 2018 the opposite party no.2 started a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which has been registered as Complaint Case No.97961 of 2019 and the said complaint case is pending for evidence. During pendency of the aforesaid proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the opposite party no.2 on April 13, 2019 had lodged a complaint against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner has cheated and misappropriated a sum of Rs.30 lakh obtained as a loan from the opposite party no.2.

6. In the FIR being Jorasanko Police Station Case No.89 of 2019 dated April 15, 2019 under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code, the opposite party no.2 alleged that the petitioner had requested him for accommodating a loan of Rs.30 lakh and the opposite party no.2 accordingly issued the loan in favour of petitioner due to cordial relationship and in order to repay the loan, the petitioner had issued a cheque being no.791823 dated February 1, 2018 to the tune of Rs.30 lakh.

7. It is further alleged that after being receipt of the loan, petitioner gradually started to avoid phone calls of the opposite party no.2 and also stopped personal visit. Opposite party no.2, sensing something wrong, visited petitioner personally and requested him to make repayment and accordingly, the opposite party no.2 had also asked petitioner to issue a fresh cheque as an earlier one was about to expire. Accordingly, the petitioner issued another cheque being no.791236 dated July 2, 2018 in favour of the opposite party no.2 but the said cheque was returned dishonoured as the signature of the drawer differed.

8. Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta, learned counsel f