IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE CRR 1722 of 2019 Avik Majumder Vs.

Anil Kumar Sharma For the petitioners : Mr. Dipanjan Dutt Ms. Sambrita B. Chatterjee Mr. Soumodip Ghosh Mr. Ayaan Bhattacharyya For the opposite party : Mr. Pradip Pandey Heard on : 08.08.2025 Judgment on : 20.11.2025 Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. This application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner with a prayer for quashment of the proceeding being complaint case no. 61 of 2018 under section 120B/420/406/465/466/467/468/471/506/34 of IPC. The aforesaid complaint case was registered on the basis of a petition of complaint filed by the opposite party herein before the court below and the allegations levelled in the said complaint are inter alia to the effect that in 2016, the complainant was called on at the office of one Pramod Agarwal, who asked him to arrange for a spacious flat and also agreed to pay brokerage to the opposite party at the rate of 2%. For the next six months the complaint shown a plethora of flats to said Pramod Agarwal and allegedly in the month of Dec 2016, said Agarwal selected one flat at Godrej Platinum as shown by the Opposite Party. It is further alleged that in January 2017, when the flat was selected in presence of his family members by said Agarwal, the petitioner assured the opposite party that he would get a brokerage of 2% as per norms of Godrej Properties Limited. The deal was allegedly finalised at the office of Agarwal on 23.02.2017 and petitioner thereafter asked the opposite party to write a letter to Godrej properties Ltd. for the brokerage. The opposite party wrote an application in Hindi when the petitioner allegedly asked to the opposite party to write the application either in English or in Bengali, then the opposite party said that he only knew how to sign his name in English. On such saying the letter was allegedly typed in English by the petitioner herein in the machine installed at the office of said Pramod Agarwal and after the same was printed, the opposite party asked the petitioner and Mr. Agarwal as to what was printed therein and he was allegedly informed at that time that it contains claim of brokerage of the opposite party from Godrej Properties Ltd. Relying upon such reply the opposite party allegedly signed the said document on good faith and belief.

2. It is further alleged that the opposite party thereafter asked for his brokerage on several occasions. Finally on 19/02/2018 the opposite party was allegedly told by the petitioner that the brokerage has been remitted to his bank account and the opposite party was asked to cross check the same but the opposite party found that no payment has been made. Thereafter opposite party was told that a letter has been mailed to him and the opposite party when opened the mail found an attachment with the said mail which discloses that the opposite party had relinquished the claim of brokerage. Thereafter opposite party made contact with the petitioner but the petitioner did not pay any heed to it. The opposite party further alleged that he was informed that the brokerage of Rs. 16,6000/- was paid to Karishma Agarwal by Godrej Properties Ltd. and thereby the accused person have caused a loss of Rs. 32,12,000/- to the opposite party.

3. It further appears that upon receipt of the aforesaid petition of complain filed under section 156(3) Cr.P.C, learned magistrate converted the same into a complaint and was pleased to take cognizance of the offence. Thereafter on examining the complainant’s witness, he postponed the issuance of process and invoking jurisdiction under section 202 of Cr.P.C, he directed the officer-in-charge of Hare Street police station to cause investigation into the alleged offence, and to submit a report. Thereafter on 18th January, 2019 one sub-inspector of police submitted a report and the Magistrat