IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that allegations of cheating and misappropriation were unfounded, determining the dispute was civil in nature, not criminal.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. A Sattar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B Sarma, learned Addl. PP, appearing for the respondent No.1, State of Assam. Also heard Mr. A.Y. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

2. The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C., is filed for quashment of prosecution launched in connection with Nagaon PS Case No.382/2014 dated 29.03.2014 under section 120(B)/420/406 IPC.

3. The brief facts which are necessary for adjudication of this present petition are recorded herein below:-

I. The informant/complaint filed a complaint case before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaon which was registered as Complaint Case No.293/2014 under section 120(B)/420/406 IPC. Subsequently, though such case was recorded as complaint case, however, the learned Magistrate had forwarded the same to the local police station for registration of a case and for investigation. Accordingly, Nagaon PS Case No.382/2014 under section 120(B)/420/406

II. The primary allegation as discernible from the complaint case/FIR is that the complainant with his family members, friends and relatives and other people of the society on being attracted by an advertisement made by the accused invested a sum of Rs.56,10,000/- with the accused on a promise to return the informant an interest @ 12% per annum till return of the entire amount invested. It is also stated in the complaint that the accused from time to time paid interest, however, after the month of April 2013, the accused did not pay the interest to the complainant.

III. On 25.02.2014, the complainant could learn that the accused had misappropriated money and therefore, on 26.02.2014, the complainant along with other witnesses went to the premises of the accused company and asked the accused to return the money lend by him.

IV. It is also pleaded that instead of returning the money the accused offered golden ornaments of same valuation to the complainant as he was suffering huge financial loss in business.

V. Though initially the complainant refused to accept the golden jewellary offered by the accused, however, the complainant subsequently accepted the jewellary with invoice and kept the aforesaid golden ornaments in his custody amounting to Rs.46,10,000.00p on good faith.

VI. Thereafter on 04.05.2014, the accused and all other employees of the company left the place of business and in that process, the petitioners suffered a loss of Rs.11,00,000/-, inasmuch as the accused had charged high labour cost on the golden ornaments and as a result, though the golden ornaments were valued at Rs.62,83,200, however, the actual price of the gold ornaments was Rs.51,15,978.

VII. It is also on record that the accused had also lodged an FIR alleging that the informant had ransacked the shop of the accused and taken away golden ornaments. On the basis of aforesaid FIR, Nagaon PS Case No.382/2014 under section 120(B)/420/406 IPC was registered, which was ended in closure report.

4. Mr. Sattar, learned counsel for the petitioners relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dalip Kaur and Others –Vs- Jagnar Singh and Another reported in (2009) 14 SCC 696, contends that no inducement on the part of the accused has been raised either in the complaint or in the pleaders notice issued earlier, therefore, mere stating that there are inducement on the part of the complainant shall not make any prima facie case under Section 406 of IPC.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that this Court in exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should not enter into the merits of the claim as raised in the FIR and is to consider whether a reading of the complaint makes out a prima facie case when such assertion made in the complaint is taken in its face value.

6. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, if the complaint is read as a whole, the same discloses offences under Section 406 of IPC. Therefore, this Court should not exercise its inhere