IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that allegations of non-return of funds in a professional context do not constitute criminal offences under IPC Sections 417, 406, or 506.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. L. Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Deepak Kumar Rajak, the respondent in person.

2. The present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for setting aside and quashing C.R. Case No. 2124c/2012 instituted by the sole respondent under Sections 417/406/506 of the IPC pending for trial before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup at Guwahti. The further challenge is an order dated 14.02.2013 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati whereby cognizance of offences under Section 417/406/506 of IPC was taken against the petitioner.

3. The allegations levelled in the complaint case are to the following effect:-

I. The complainant is an Advocate by profession and doing taxation practice. His client “Cambridge Educational Trust” approached the accused petitioner to do a project for sanction of a loan and in turn, the complainant delegated the aforesaid project to the accused as the accused introduced the complainant to be a person dealing with such project.

II. It is the further case that the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 10,000/- by cheque to the accused petitioner for preparation of project report. Subsequently, another amount of Rs. 17,000/- was also paid to the accused petitioner against demand of Rs. 20,000/- with a hope that the accused petitioner will complete the assignment. The said Rs. 17,000/- was taken for preparation of legal report.

III. It is the further case as discernible from the statement made in the complaint is that the petitioner/accused on 17.03.2012 directly demanded Rs. 50,000/- for further process from the complainant’s client i.e. “Cambridge Educational Trust” over phone without intimating the complainant.

IV. The client of the complainant discussed the matter with the complainant and issued a conditional account payee cheque of Rs. 50,000/- in the name of the accused petitioner with a condition that he should not clear the cheque until further processing the matter and to intimate the complainant before depositing the cheque in the bank. The aforesaid Rs. 50,000/- was dishonestly cleared by the accused petitioner without following the instruction of the complainant and accordingly, the complainant asked the accused petitioner to stop the process of loan and requested to show project and legal report claimed to be prepared by the accused petitioner or otherwise to return all the documents and amount of Rs. 77,000/- in total which was paid by the complainant and his client.

V. It is further alleged that though initially the accused petitioner promised to complete the work but he could not complete the work and returned an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the client of the complainant but the amount of Rs. 27,000/- paid by the complainant to the accused petitioner has not yet been paid.

VI. Further, it is also alleged that the accused petitioner has not returned the documents to the complainant or his client and in this regard, it is pleaded that the complainant has been authorized by the client of complainant to receive the documents from the accused petitioner.

VII. It is further alleged that the complaint searched the background of the accused person and it came to know that the accused petitioner has cheated many other people.

VIII. At paragraph 15 of the complaint, it is stated that after several reminders, visits and mental and economical harassment and SMS for expressing intention of filing of criminal and civil case in the court of law for justice, arrest, punishment and recovery of money from the accused, then only the accused has returned an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the client of the complainant on 19.05.2012 against advance amount of Rs. 77,000/-and the accused has digested the amount of Rs. 27,000/- of the complainant and his client in the name of professional fee by way of dishonestly cheating, breach of trust and misappropriation of property. Accordingly, the complaint wa