Criminal proceedings should not be quashed at the cognizance stage in disputes involving alleged misappropriation of funds. Such matters require evaluation of evidence at the stage of framing charges, and the court will not conduct a roving inquiry to categorize a dispute as purely civil at the initial stage.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) :

Heard Mr. H. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Keshab Gogoi, who has filed this application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS for short) with prayer for quashing the proceeding in PRC No. 293/2024 and the order of taking cognizance dated 19.08.2024 in the aforementioned case.

2. Heard learned counsel Mr. S.K. Poddar and learned counsel Mr. R. Ghosh for the respondent No. 2 Sri Nitul Medhi and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. B. Sarma for the respondent State.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that vide order dated 19.08.2024 in PRC No. 293/2024, cognizance was taken under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short), whereas no case under the aforementioned sections of law has been made out against the accused person Keshab Gogoi.

4. It is further submitted that the charge sheet clearly reveals that there was no initial intention of cheating.

5. The FIR unfolds that both the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 entered into a partnership agreement on 15.09.2019 for contractual work and the respondent No. 2 invested Rs.1,03,07,702/- (Rupees One Crore Three Lacs Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Two) and he paid Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lacs) in cash and the remaining money was invested by the complainant for labour cost, sand, gravel, cement, post etc. A joint account was maintained by the partnership firm between the complainant and the accused, and when the first bill was paid, the bill was received and deposited in the joint account of the complainant and the accused i.e. the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner. The account is maintained at Vijaya Bank, Bongaigaon Town Branch. Out of the initial payment of Rs.32,39,709/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lacs Thirty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Nine), a sum of Rs.26,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs) was paid to the respondent No. 2 and Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lacs) was taken by the petitioner. On 17.04.2021, the second bill of Rs.26,59,176/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Fifty Nine Thousand One Hundred and Seventy Six) was paid in the personal account of the petitioner’s bank at Canara Bank, Beltola Branch. The third bill of Rs.16,13,270/- (Rupees Sixteen Lacs Thirteen Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy) was also paid into the same personal account of the petitioner. However, as per the terms and conditions of the agreement executed between both the parties, the money ought to have been deposited in the joint account. Without the knowledge of the respondent No. 2, the aforementioned two installments were deposited in the petitioner’s personal account, and the deposited amount has been misappropriated by the petitioner. When the respondent No. 2 demanded the money, the petitioner rebuked him using slang language and also threatened him. This impelled the complainant/respondent No. 2 to file a complaint petition and after his initial deposition was recorded, this case was forwarded to the Investigating Officer (IO for short) for investigation.

6. After charge sheet was submitted, cognizance was taken under Sections 406/420 of IPC.

7. It is submitted that no ingredient under Section 420/406 of IPC has been made out. The petitioner has relied on the following decisions :-

(i) Paramjeet Batra Versus State of Uttarakhand & Ors. reported in 2012 (12) SCALE 688.

(ii) Bisu Alom Versus The State of Assam Rep. By PP, Assam and Anr.