JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing and/or setting aside of proceedings arising out of complaint case No.CS-6781/19 of 2019 dated 2/2/2019 under Sections 420/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code, presently pending before the learned 19th Metropolitan Magistrate, at Kolkata and all orders passed therein including order dated 2/2/19 whereby the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata was pleased to take cognizance of the impugned complaint and transfer the proceedings to the Court of the learned 19th Metropolitan Magistrate, at Kolkata for disposal and all orders therein.

2. The petitioners case is that the petitioner no.1 is a company registered under the relevant provisions of the Companies Act having its registered office at Mohili Village opposite BMC School, Andheri, Ghatkopar, Mumbai, Maharastra-400072 being represented by its authorised representative, Mr. Abhishek Kharkar vide board resolution dated 14th December, 2019 and the petitioner nos.2 and 3 are the persons responsible for the day to day affairs of the petitioner no.1.

3. The petitioners state that they have been implicated in the proceeding being Complaint Case no.CS-6781/19 of 2019 dated 2/2/2019 under Sections 420/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code, presently pending before the learned 19th Metropolitan Magistrate at Kolkata at the behest of the opposite party.

4. The petitioner is a company having business of Honda dealership established for sales and services of Honda Two Wheelers and has goodwill and repute in the market.

5. The opposite party is a financial institution offering loan facility against interest.

6. In the year 2017 the petitioner company was in need of money to expand its business and hearing about the facility provided by the opposite party the petitioners have approached the opposite party for a loan for the purpose of expanding its business and pursuant to such approach and after due documentation and verification a loan agreement being Agreement No.LNMUM19117-180009070 of the year 15th September, 2017 has been executed by and in between the parties and pursuant to such agreement the opposite party sanctioned a loan of rupees 30 lacs to the petitioners.

7. The petitioners have paid back Rs.26,75,587/-to the opposite party through different installments.

8. That despite payment of such substantial amount, the opposite party has continued pressurizing the petitioner for payment of rest of the amount with interest, with immediate effect and also threatened the petitioner that in default the opposite party will implicate the petitioner in false criminal cases.

9. The incident which lead to the initiation of the impugned proceeding in brief is as follows:-

“The complainant company, the opposite party herein, was approached by the petitioner for a loan of rupees 30 lakhs for business purpose and after due verification the opposite party has sanctioned such loan to the petitioner company after executing a loan agreement being Agreement No.LNMUM19117-180009070 of the year 2017 but the petitioners have failed to make payment of the full amount within time and as such an amount of rupees 3,24,413 of the opposite party is due from the petitioners which the petitioners have failed to pay and thereby committed an offence under Sections 420/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code.”

10. Mr. Anirban Dutta learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that dishonest intention from the very inception is a sine qua non to attract Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, but on a plain reading of the purported complaint, it becomes apparent that out of rupees 30 lacs, the petitioners have paid rupees 26,755,87 and only an amount of rupees 3,24,413 is due to the opposite party from the petitioners, which clearly negates the abovementioned proposition of dishonest intention from the very inception and clearly renders the said complaint legally untenable and otherwise bad in law.

11. The complaint is false, frivolo