IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of fulfilling the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC and the liability of directors in corporate criminal liability.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of the proceedings of G.R. No. 1250 of 2018 corresponding to Haripal Police Station Case No. 194 of 2018 dated September 22, 2018 under Sections 420/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending before the Court of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Chandannagore, Hooghly.

FACTS:-

2. The petitioner states that on September 29, 2018 the opposite party no.2 herein filed a complaint before the Court of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Chandannagore at Hooghly (hereinafter referred to as ‘Learned ACJM’) therein alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 420/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) against as many as five accused persons including the petitioner herein who were arraigned as accused no.3, 4 and 5 respectively therein praying for a direction under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) for an investigation under Chapter XII of Cr.P.C.

3. The allegations in the complaint was to the effect that:-

The opposite party no.2 herein is the owner of a Restaurant Cum Bar under the name and style of Sangam Tourist Lodge/Hotel/Restaurant Cum Bar situated at Vill. Hamiragachi, Post Office Brahmanpara, Police Station – Haripal, District – Hooghly (hereinafter referred to as =Sangam Tourist Lodge‘). On May 29, 2018 the accused came to Sangam Tourist Lodge as manager of NEXA Company under Sanei Motors Pvt. Ltd., a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 2013, duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 113, Park Street. Poddar Point, Kolkata – 700 016 (hereinafter referred to as =Sanei Motors‘) and approached the opposite party no.2 herein to buy a vehicle bearing Model No. S CROSS VARIANT ALPHA SCRO CLS (hereinafter referred to as ‘said vehicle’). The opposite party no.2 was interested to purchase the said Model and accordingly, the Booking Requisition Form was filled up by the opposite party no.2. The co-accused person was further alleged to have handed over to the opposite party no.2 one NEXA Customer Welcome Docket as well as agreement papers. The accused person after having discussion with accused persons, stated to the opposite party no.2 that the valuation of the said vehicle was Rs. 11,32,812/- as ex-showroom price. The accused person further stated the Insurance Cost as Rs. 34,321/-, NEXA Car Charges as Rs. 1,180/-, GNA Charges as Rs. 5,868/-, Registration Charges for five years as Rs.63,810/-, Warranty for five years as Rs. 22,597/-, TCS 1% as Rs. 11,328/- aggregating Rs. 12,71,926/- as on road price of the said vehicle.

The opposite party no. 2, through the accused applied to State Bank of India, Chowringhee Branch for a loan of Rs. 10 Lakhs and the said loan amount was sanctioned by the Deputy Manager of State Bank of India, Chowringhee Branch and the said loan amount was subsequently paid by State Bank of India, Chowringhee Branch to Sanei Motors.

On May 29, 2018, the opposite party no.2 issued a cheque for Rs. 11,000/-.

On June 25, 2018, the TCS amount of Rs. 11,328/- was paid by the opposite party no.2. On June 25, 2018, a Bank Draft for Rs. 2,51,438/- was also given by the opposite party no.2 to Sanei Motors.

On June 30, 2018, an agreement was signed by the opposite party no.2 with State Bank of India, Chowringhee Branch in respect of such loan.

Sanei Motors thereafter, informed the opposite party no.2 that it had not received the amount of Rs. 2,73,766/- which the opposite party no.2 deposited. The opposite party no.2 sought for Receipt of such amount, however, Sanei Motors did not accede to the same. On account of such lackadaisical attitude of Sanei Motors, the opposite party no.2 cancelled the agreement and demanded back Rs. 2.73,766/-. However, no amount was refunded to the opposite party no. 2 for which on August 27. 2018, the oppos