The central legal point established in the judgment is that the essential elements for the offences under Sections 420, 406, and 425 of the Indian Penal Code must be satisfied, and the absence of these elements can lead to the quashing of criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.

1. The present revisional application has been preferred praying for quashing of the proceeding in connection with Park Street Police Station Case No. 58 dated March 14, 2020 under Sections 420/406/425/120B of Indian Penal Code now pending before the Court of the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.

2. FACTS:

The petitioner’s case is that on March 12, 2020 the opposite party no. 2 herein filed a complaint before Park Street Police Station alleging inter-alia that she being the widow and the legal heir of her deceased husband namely Late Dr. Vijay Pahwa is entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 46,98,800/- from the petitioner and his mother namely Seema Keyal. It is stated in the FIR that the husband (since deceased) of the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- as loan to the father of the petitioner namely, Late Sanjay Kumar Keyal (now deceased) by way of a cheque being no. 904490 drawn on Standard Chartered Bank, Chowringhee Branch, Kolkata. It is also stated in the FIR that the said amount of loan was to be repaid by father of the petitioner along with 9% interest accrued thereupon on quarterly basis. In the year 2017, Sanjay Kumar Keyal expired and as a successor-in-interest of the said Late Sanjay Kumar Keyal, the petitioner and his mother had continued to pay 9% over the loan amount taken by Late Sanjay Kumar Keyal till September 27, 2018. Subsequently the petitioner stopped payment though, along with interest the complainant was yet to receive Rs. 46,98,800/-.

3. The petitioner further states that since his father has expired in the year of 2017, the liability of the petitioner as a successor-in-interest does not arise and as such he has no existing liabilities in a criminal proceedings and if any liability remains, remedy lies in the civil court.

4. Hence the revision.

5. It is submitted by the petitioner that the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta while taking cognizance ought to have taken into consideration that the loanee namely Late Sanjay Kumar Keyal has passed away in November 2017 and subsequently the loaner expired on June 06, 2019 and thus the impugned proceeding is not maintainable in the eye of law, being not in conformity with law.

6. It is further submitted that Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. The offence of cheating is made of two ingredients, deception of any person and fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property. In the instant case neither the petitioner has received any property nor the petitioner has deceived anyone for delivery of any property and as such the impugned proceeding is liable to be set aside.

7. That, before a person is said to have committed criminal breach of trust within the meaning of Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, it must be established that he was either entrusted with or entrusted with dominion over property which he has said to have converted to his own use. It must be further shown that such dominion was the result of entrustment. In the present case the complainant’s husband never entrusted the petitioner with any valuable security.

8. FINDINGS:

The FIR/Charge Sheet in this case has been filed under Sections 420/406/425/120B of IPC.

9. The petitioner has relied upon the ruling in S.K. Alagh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2008) 5 SCC 662.

10. Admittedly in the year 2004, the father of the petitioner/accused took loan from the husband of the opposite party no. 2/de facto complainant.

11. The petitioner’s father died in 2017. The complainant’s husband died in 2019. The loan was a transaction between the predecessors of the parties and not between the parties in the present case.

12. After the death of their father, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 75,000/- to the husband of the complainant, after speaking to him. Thus the petitioner denies the claim