Prosenjit Dutta vs State of Mizoram - 2021 Supreme(Gau) 786

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Gau) 786

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.
Prosenjit Dutta – Appellant
Versus
State of Mizoram and Ors. – Respondents
Crl. Pet. No. 4 of 2019
Decided On : 25-05-2021

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :P.K. Deka and M.S. Alam, Advocates
For the Respondents:F. Lalengliana, Advocate and Linda L. Fambawl, Addl. PP

Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 32, 226 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 420, 506, 448, 365, 395 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 155 (2), 156(1), 482 – Criminal petition – Quashing First Information Report – Power of high court to issue to certain Writs – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property – Punishment for criminal intimidation – Punishment for house-trespass – Punishment for dacoity – Saving of inherent powers of High Court – Criminal petition has been filed for quashing FIRs and consequent criminal proceeding, i.e. Criminal Trial, arising out of Police Station Case under Sections 420 and 506 IPC – Held, Court is of view that present case, though initially a civil dispute has now taken colour of a criminal case – Petitioner is now even trying to play games with this Court with only intention to delay case and avoid his liability – Attempt to resolve dispute by way of Deed of Agreement is only a sham/ruse to cheat respondent No. 5, as petitioner had given a cheque, without having sufficient bank balance for same – Court has held that criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on ground that allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature – In present case, petitioner's action seems to contain an element of cheating – In view of reasons stated above, this Court finds that petitioner has not been able to make out a case for quashing FIR and consequent criminal proceeding in Criminal Trial, arising out P.S. Case under Section 420 & 506 IPC – Criminal Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Michael Zothankhuma, J.

1. Heard Mr. P.K. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. F. Lalengliana, the learned counsel for the respondent No.5 and Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

2. This criminal petition has been filed for quashing the FIRs dated 04.02.2019 and 06.02.2019 and the consequent criminal proceeding, i.e. Criminal Trial No.74/2019, arising out of Champhai Police Station Case No.9/2019 dated 06.02.2019 under Sections 420 and 506 IPC.

3. The petitioner's counsel submits that the case of the respondent No. 5 is that the respondent No. 5 had given Rs. 2,99,50,000/- to the petitioner sometime in July, 2018, for supply of sugar and fertilizer. However, the supply of the materials made by the petitioner to the respondent No. 5 was short by Rs. 69,12,327/-. Despite the request made by the respondent No. 5 to the petitioner to make good the short supply, the petitioner refused to send the same. When the respondent No. 5 and her husband went to meet the petitioner demanding payment of Rs. 69,12,327/- at Silchar in January, 2019, one of the petitioner's employees, namely, Sh. Abdul Ahad Laskar threatened them with a knife saying that they would not be given any money and were told not to come again to the shop/place.

4. The petitioner's counsel submits that initially the respondent No. 5 filed FIR dated 4.2.2019. However, a subsequent FIR dated 06.02.2019 was filed by the respondent No. 5 which was registered as Champhai Police Station Case No. 9/2019 under Sections 420 and 506 IPC. The petitioner was also arrested by the Champhai Police and he was released on bail by the Court of the CJM, Champhai on 19.03.2019.

5. The petitioner's counsel submits that a Deed of Agreement dated 20.03.2019 was executed between the respondent No. 5 and the petitioner, wherein it was agreed that out of the claim of Rs. 69,12,327/- made by the respondent No. 5, the petitioner would pay Rs. 25 lakhs plus another Rs. 40 lakh in settlement of the claim made by the respondent No. 5. The petitioner's counsel submits that Rs. 25 lakhs was paid through RTGS/Bank Transfer to the respondent No. 5 by the petitioner. For the amount of Rs. 40 lakhs, the petitioner gave a United Bank of India (UBI) Cheque dated 30.07.2019, bearing Cheque No. 442189, in favour of Abub Ahmed Mazumder, who was the business partner/agent of the respondent No. 5. Thereafter, the respondent No. 5 was to withdraw the FIR dated 06.02.2019, on the basis of which Champhai Police Station Case No. 9/2019 had been registered against the petitioner. The petitioner, on his part, was to withdraw the FIR filed by the petitioner against Sh. Abub Ahmed Mazumder, i.e. FIR No. 336 dated 29.01.2019 under Section 448/365/395 IPC.

6. The petitioner's counsel submits that in terms of the Deed of Agreement dated 20.03.2019, the FIR dated 06.02.2019 was supposed to be withdrawn. However, the same has not been done. He also submits that though Cheque bearing No. 442189 dated 30.7.2019 amounting to Rs. 40 lakhs, which had been given to Sh. Abub Ahmed Mazumder had bounced due to insufficient funds, the same could not have been the ground for not withdrawing the FIR dated 06.02.2019, as Sh. Abub Ahmed Mazumder had filed Case No. N.I(CR) Case/0000221/2019 in the Court of the SDJM (S), Silchar under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for the bounced cheque wherein the proceedings were still going on.

7. The petitioner's counsel submits that as the terms and conditions laid down in the Deed of Agreement dated 20.03.2019, regarding payment of money by way of Bank transfer and by way of cheque has already been made by the petitioner, the FIR dated 06.02.2019 should be quashed and set aside, as the respondent No. 5, through Sh. Abub Ahmed Mazumder has already filed a case under the Negotiable Instruments Act for the bounced cheque. He submits that the petitioner had submitted an FIR No. 336 dated 29.01.2019 under Sections 448/365/395