The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court can exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code to quash a criminal proceeding if the allegations do not prima facie establish the offence, and if the dispute between the parties appears to be purely civil in nature.

JUDGMENT :

This criminal petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘the Code’ and/or ‘the CrPC’, for short) has been preferred seeking quashing of the criminal proceeding of G.R. Case no. 216/2019, arising out of Karimganj Police Station Case no. 93/2019 registered for the offences under Section 420 and Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. The 3 (three) petitioners are named as accused no. 2, accused no. 1 and accused no. 3 respectively in the First Information Report (FIR) lodged before the In-Charge, Longlai Police Patrol Post, Karimganj on 23.01.2019. On receipt of the FIR, the In-Charge, Longlai Police Patrol Post entered the same vide Longlai Police Patrol Post General Diary Entry no. 364 dated 23.01.2019 and by forwarding the FIR to the Officer In-Charge, Karimganj Police Station to register the case, had taken up the investigation of the case himself. On receipt of the FIR, the Officer In-Charge, Karimganj Police Station directed the In-Charge, Longlai Police Patrol Post to conduct an inquiry into the matter, to check all related documents and to submit a report. On 01.02.2019, the In-Charge, Longlai Police Patrol Post informed the Officer In-Charge, Karimganj Police Station that he had locally enquired into the matter and opined that there were sufficient evidence against the accused persons named in the FIR and accordingly, a case was required to be registered. It was thereafter on 01.02.2019, the Officer In-Charge, Karimganj Police Station, registered the FIR as Karimganj Police Station Case no. 93/2019.

3. The case projected on behalf of the petitioners is that the petitioner no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused no. 2’, at places, for easy reference) and the petitioner no. 2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused no. 1’, at places, for easy reference) are the Managers (Export Sales) of Pran-RFL Group, a manufacturer of beverages and food products. The petitioner no. 3 (hereinafter similarly referred to as ‘the accused no. 3) is the Assistant General Manager, North-East India of Pran-RFL Group. All the three accused persons are citizens of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh and engaged in India for supervision of the sales and marketing of the beverages and food products of Pran-RFL Group which are sold and marketed in the entire North-East India. It is further stated that the accused nos. 1 and 2 are presently staying in India for business purposes and the accused no. 3 is currently serving the company in its Dhaka branch. The presence of the accused persons in India to supervise the sales and marketing of the products of Pran-RFL Group are on the strength of multiple Visas and valid passports.

4. Heard Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no. 1, State of Assam.

5. The informant has been impleaded as respondent no. 2 and notice was issued to the respondent no. 2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the informant’, at places, for convenience). Notice sent to the informant had returned unserved with remark that he refused to accept the notice. Accordingly, this Court on 19.08.2019 had accepted the notice as served on respondent no. 2-informant. When the case was listed on 19.08.2019, 26.09.2019, 06.05.2020, 27.05.2020 and 05.06.2020, none had appeared on behalf of the informant on those occasions. On 05.06.2020, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State were heard. The case was posted to 05.06.2020 finding that the informant was absent. Today also, none has appeared for the informant. Accordingly, the case is taken up for final consideration.

6. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that even if the entire averments and allegations made in the FIR are taken at its face value and accepted to be true, none of the ingredients of the offences under Section 406, IPC and Section 420, IPC can be said to be disclosed. The relationship between the accused persons