Disputes framed as criminal offenses that are fundamentally civil in nature cannot proceed in criminal court; this prevents abuse of the criminal process for civil grievances.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.

1. This instant Criminal Revisional application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short CrPC) challenging the impugned order dated 12th February, 2018 passed by the Learned Judge, Bench-I, City Sessions Court at Calcutta in Criminal Revision No. 217 of 2016 thereby the Learned Judge affirmed the order of rejection of Narazi/protest petition filed by the de-facto complainant/petitioner herein against the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer before the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta in G.R. Case No. 2741 of 2011 arising out of Hare Street Police Station Case No. 538 of 2011.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

2. The aforesaid Hare Street Police Station Case No. 538 of 2011 had been registered based on a written complaint lodged by the Director of the Company/petitioner herein, alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner, a private limited company engaged in real estate business, had participated in the auction sale as invited by the authorised officer, UCO Bank, and placed the bid of Rs. 70,00,000/- to purchase a mortgaged property measuring an area 56.97 Cottahs, comprising CSR-8, Khatian No. 396, L.R. Khatian No. 178 with structure therein.

3. Being the successful bidder in the bidding process, the Petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 17,50,000/- as 25% of the total amount, inclusive of earnest money, with the UCO Bank by way of 2 pay orders in terms and conditions of the notice of tender published in the newspapers.

4. Subsequently, the petitioner also paid the balance amount of Rs. 52,50,000/- by cheque dated 07.04.2010 and requested the authorised officer, UCO bank, to issue a certificate of sale in respect of the property, which is the subject matter of the auction sale.

5. The Assistant General Manager, UCO Bank, however, expressed his helplessness to conform the sale certificate in favour of the petitioner, even the payment of the whole consideration amount. He requested to bear the delay in the matter in view of the pendency of the proceeding before the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal. In the meantime, it is alleged that the officers of UCO Bank, acting in collusion and in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy with M/s. Parasnath Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Samadhan Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. began negotiating amongst themselves with a dishonest and fraudulent intent to return the property to the said entities, thereby causing wrongful gain to them. It is further alleged that pursuant to a compromise arrived at amongst themselves and in consideration of a substantial monetary benefit, the property was ultimately returned to the said entities. This was notwithstanding the fact that the bank had already taken possession of the property and published notice inviting tenders in the open market in newspapers, namely, The Indian Express and Aajkal, pursuant to which the petitioner became the highest bidder and paid the entire bid amount to the Bank.

6. During pendency of the proceedings before the DRT, the Bank employees, the borrowers and guarantors had secretly settled the matter behind the petitioner’s back. According to the petitioner, the bank illegally and dishonestly released the auctioned property back to the borrower without refunding the amount deposited by the petitioner. Such acts are alleged to constitute fraud and criminal breach of trust as committed by the Bank officials in conspiracy with the borrower and guarantors, causing substantial loss to the petitioner. Based on such alleg