Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
Shri Jagannath Goswami & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Anr. - Opposite Parties
C.R.R. No. 1837 of 2008
Decided On : 16-08-2023
CRIMINAL REVISION - For quashing of the proceedings before the Learned Special Judge at Tamluk, Purba Medinipur being T.R Case No. 7/99 in connection with G.R. Case No. 226/1998 arising out of Tamluk Police Station Case No. 69/1998. - Held that the criminal complaint in the present matter does make out a prima facie case against the petitioners/ accused persons. Moreover, the instant revisional application is not a rare case that justifies the Court's interference, and for this reason, the said FIR and proceedings before the Trial Court concerned should not be quashed.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioners, being the former Vice Chairman, Directors of Tamluk Ghatal Co-operative Bank were facing charges under Sections 468/471/420/120B/406/409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for sanctioning a loan of Rs. 36,00,000/- to M/s Jaiswal Traders in violation of the West Bengal Co-Operative Banks Guidelines.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the allegations outlined in the FIR do indeed amount to an offence against the accused individuals and reveal the presence of a cognizable offence. Secondly, it is evident that the accusations are neither ludicrous nor implausible, as there exist substantial reasons to proceed with the case against the accused parties. Lastly, this Court is of the view that there is no justifiable cause to quash the proceedings, as they are not tainted with malicious intent or motivated by any ulterior motive seeking retribution against the accused, driven by personal animosity or private grudges.
Issues: Whether the FIR and proceedings before the Trial Court concerned should be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles laid down in the cases of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal, Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, and Arnab Goswami v. State of Maharashtra to hold that the High Court's power to quash FIRs/complaints under Section 482 of the CrPC should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. In the present case, the court found that the allegations in the FIR did make out a prima facie case against the petitioners and that there was no justification to quash the proceedings.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the criminal revisional application and directed the Learned Judge, Special Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur, to conduct expeditiously the ongoing proceedings being T.R Case No. 7/99 and conclude the same within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of the order.
JUDGMENT :
Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
1. The instant Criminal Revisional Application, being C.R.R. No 1837 of 2008, has been filed by the petitioners under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CrPC’) against the order dated March 4, 2008 passed by the Learned Judge, Special Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur, in connection with G.R. Case No. 226 of 1998 arising out of Tamluk P.S. Case No. 69 dated April 30, 1998, alleging commission of offences u/s 468/471/420/120B/406/409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’).
2. Before delving into the facts, it is required at the outset to adumbrate the identity of the parties involved in the instant application. Jagannath Goswami, being the petitioner no. 1, herein was holding the post of vice chairman of the Tamluk Ghatal Co-operative Bank (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Bank’), Shri Ratan Chakraborty and Shri Tarun Samanta, being the petitioners no. 2 and 3 respectively, were holding the post of Directors in the said Bank. It is needed to be pointed out that the petitioner no. 2 has already passed away.
3. On the other side, Shri Pratik Banerjee, Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Socieites, Western Zone, Burdwan, being the opposite party no. 2 is the one who had filed the said criminal complaint dated April 30, 1998 with Tamluk Police Station.
Relevant Facts
4. The germane facts which remain after eschewing the unnecessary are mentioned below:-
(b) The proposal was subsequently accepted after a prolonged discussion and it was resolved that a loan amounting to Rs. 36,00,000/-( Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Only) would be sanctioned from the Bank’s own resources. It was further decided that interest at the rate of 18% per annum would be levied upon the said loan.
(c) The term of the loan as agreed between the parties was that the borrower was required to repay the entire loan amount along with interest by six-yearly instalments. It was also agreed that the loan will carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum and the said interest shall be realised on half yearly basis. The penal interest which would be levied in the event of any default was set at the rate of 20% per annum till the entire loan is liquidated.
(d) In the same meeting, it had been further decided that as part of collateral security, a land and building, lien of fixed deposit and cash certificate, and LIC policy in favour of the Bank would be taken against the disbursement of the loan amount. At this juncture, it is relevant to point out that the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (‘NABARD’) issued a letter informing the Chairman of the Bank that ‘the said disbursement of loan by the Bank is not eligible for NABARD refinance assistance as the same exceeds the integrated loan limit of Rs. 10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs only)’.
(e) On July 21, 1995, Mata Prasad Jaiswal, that is, the borrower became the nominal member of the Bank by depositing the requisite membership fees.
(f) The borrower made payments towards the repayment of the loan to the tune of Rs. 39,32,760 the September 3, 2003 out of the disbursed amount of Rs. 32,00,000/- whereof the sanctioned amount was Rs. 36,00,000/-. It is to point out that there were certain defaults of repayment of the loan amount committed by the borrower and recovery proceedings were also initiated. For the sake of brevity, it is not necessary to discuss that herein.
(g) On April 20, 1998, a complaint was registered by Sri Pratik Banerjee, Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Western Zone, Burdwan, with the Tamluk Police Station bearing case no 69/1998 against
The power of the High Court to quash FIRs/complaints under Section 482 of the CrPC should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances.
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.
Criminal breach of trust, cheating and conspiracy – Without existence of requisite mens rea no criminal prosecution will stand.
The court established that a continuing cause of action can extend the limitation period for filing a complaint, and that prima facie evidence of criminal breach of trust was sufficient to uphold the....
Criminal proceedings under IPC require evidence of mens rea and deception from inception; mere non-payment of loans does not constitute a crime without fraudulent intent.
The court confirmed that a fiduciary relationship can give rise to criminal liability under IPC sections for failure to remit entrusted funds, emphasizing that both civil and criminal remedies may be....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
