Civil disputes cannot be cloaked in criminality; allegations of cheating require proof of fraudulent intent at inception of the transaction.

JUDGMENT :

Rai Chattopadhyay, J.

(1) The petitioners have challenged in the instant revision the proceedings in G.R. Case No. 887 of 2014, now pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, in connection with the Howrah Police Station Case No. 124 of 2014 dated 3.3.2014. The petitioners are the first three accused persons in the FIR as above, filed by the opposite party No. 2. The Howrah Police Station Case No. 124 of 2014 dated 03.03.2014, has been registered under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 469, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2) Chronology of events leading to filing of the FIR as above, may be narrated in a nutshell, as follows:-

- Pushpanjali Tie Up Private Limited, represented here by the opposite party No. 2, said to have invested a huge amount of money to purchase 5,25,000 shares of Flexituff International Limited, worth Rs. 11,25,00,000/-. Thus, the complainant/opposite party No. 2 claims to be the owner of the entire share of Flexituff International Limited as above stated.

- In the month of March 2013, due to some financial crisis, the complainant/opposite party No.2 had decided to pledge those shares and was introduced to the petitioners, through the accused person No. 4 in the FIR (who is not a party in this revision). Allegedly, the petitioners had induced the opposite party No. 2/complainant to entrust and invest, deceitfully assured and promised to provide required financial aid against pledging of shares as collateral security. Relying upon such false assurances to be true, the complainant/opposite party No. 2 pledged 5,25,000 shares of Flexituff International Limited worth Rs. 11,25,00,000/-, in the demat account of the petitioners, by executing two separate loan agreements. A sum of Rs. 5 crores was advanced by the petitioners to the complainant/opposite party No.2, in lieu of pledging those shares, in accordance with the terms of the agreements.

- Later on, allegedly, the accused persons on different false plea had made the complaint/opposite party No. 2 to refund Rs. 2 crores in favour of the petitioners No. 2 & 3 on the promise and assurance to release the shares earlier pledged, to the tune of Rs. 4.5 crores. But instead of returning back the shares worth Rs. 4.5 Crores, the petitioners, along with accused person No. 4 (in the FIR), allegedly have returned only 13,600 shares on October 15, 2013 and 27,100 shares on October 28, 2013. The complainant has alleged that rest of the shares, being 1,98,761 of those, were fraudulently sold in favour of CD Equisearch Private Limited, a company owned by the accused persons No. 5 to 7 (not parties in this revision) on October 29, 2013. Allegedly, such transaction has been made by the petitioners, without informing the complainant/opposite party No.2, and without his knowledge or consent. Thus, an offence of cheating and forgery has been alleged against the petitioners. The complainant/opposite party No.2 has stated that the petitioners were holding the shares as above as collateral security in trust for and on behalf of the opposite party No.2 and that they did not have any authority or right to sell the shares or transfer those. By such unauthorised transaction, the petitioners have unjustly enriched themselves and subjected the complainant to wrongful loss by cheating and breach of trust.

- The loan agreements are a record which have been entered into by the complainant/opposite party No. 2 and the present petitioners No. 2 and 3 respectively being dated March 8, 2013 and March 19, 2013 respectively. By executing the said deeds, the complainant has been provided with a s