The central legal point established in the judgment is that the absence of elements such as fraudulent inducement and dishonest misappropriation can lead to the quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 406, 409, 420 of IPC in a business dispute.

JUDGMENT :

SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J.

1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure for quashing of charge-sheet being charge sheet no. 27 of 2015 dated March 31, 2015 under Sections 406, 409, 420 of IPC pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Purulia.

2. The brief fact of the case is that the present opposite party no. 2 lodged a FIR on January 21, 2013 with the Officer-in-Charge, Jhalda P.S. therein alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 406/409/420 of IPC against the present petitioner on the allegation of cheating and misappropriation of money to the tune of Rs. 25,25,700/- by the present petitioner carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Sarada Foundaries and Engineering Works. On the basis of the said FIR Jhalda P.S. Case No. 06 of 2013 dated January 25, 2013 was registered under Sections 406/409/420 IPC. After investigation police has submitted charge-sheet on March 31, 2015 vide charge sheet no. 27 of 2015 under Sections 406/409/420 of IPC before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia. Against the said charge-sheet, the instant criminal revisional has been preferred for quashing.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioners submits that there was a long standing business transaction between the parties and the several agreements were entered into between the parties to conduct such business. There was some dispute in such business in relating to terms of the agreement and/or, for the payment of money but such dispute has been colourably framed as a criminal case by the present opposite party no. 2. The main business transaction between the parties were, the present petitioner has to supply or delivery the machineries to the opposite party according to their quotation. There are some delay payment, and/or, such payments were subsequently done in full; the disputes were also settled between the parties by intervention of common friends and business personals, in spite of that the present opposite party no. 2 has lodged the following complaint. He further argued that the opposite party no. 2 has also file money suit no. 23 of 2017 before the learned Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division of Howrah for realization of money amounting to Rs. 21,36,58,918/-. He argued that the entire fact of the FIR would show that the allegation is relating to purely commercial transaction. The police have not conduct the investigation fact properly and submitted perfunctory charge sheet, so the charge-sheet need be quashed. He further argued that the ingredients of offence under Sections 420 IPC, that is, cheating and dishonest delivery of property is missing in this case. There are no instances to prove the fact that there were “initial deception” on the part of the present petitioner at the time of entering into alleged business contract. There is no agreement of entrustment in favour of the petitioner and misappropriation thereof. Thus, the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC is not at all maintainable. As the charge under Section 406 of IPC is not made out, the charge under Section 409 of IPC, which is aggravated version of Section 406 of IPC, is not applicable in this case.

4. In support of his contention, the learned advocate for the petitioner cited some decisions reported in Murari Lal Gupta vs. Gopi Singh, (2005) 12 SCC 699, All Cargo Movers (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others vs. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain and Another, (2007) 14 SCC 776, Sanat Karar and Others vs. State of West Bengal and Another, (2013) 3 Cal. L.J. 367, Dilip Kaur and Others vs. Jagnar Singh and Another, (2009) 14 SCC 696, V.P. Shrivastava vs. Indian Explosives Ltd. and Others, (2010) 10 SCC 361, Y.V. Jose and Another vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2009) 3 SCC 78. By citing those judgment laws laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the charge-sheet submitted by the police against the present petitioner is not made out any case punishable