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

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE CRR 2732 of 2022 Bikasija Bhattacharjya @ Bikasija Bhattacharya Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Anr For the Petitioner : Mr. Ayan Basu Ms. Juin Dutta Chakraborty Mr. Kushal Roy Mr. Sumit Routh Mr. Bidan Modak Ms. Arpita Kundu For the Opposite Party no.2 : Mr Dipanjan Dutt Mr. Pijush Biswas For the State : Mr. Madhusudan Sur, ld. APP Mr. Manoranjan Mahata Heard on : 04.04.2025 Judgment on : 06.05.2025 Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. The petitioner/accused moved the present application under section 482 of the Code of the criminal procedure (Cr.P.C) seeking quashment of GR Case no. 2828 of 2021 presently pending before ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uluberia, Howrah.

2. It has been alleged interalia in the complaint that the complaint who is the president of the Sanjiban Hospital, in presence of other staff had made prolonged discussion with the accused /petitioner for obtaining financial assistance from him and the petitioner agreed to the proposal that he could provide Rs. 12 cores for a period of two years for the said hospital to meet the dire needs of funds at the rate of 24% interest and it was further agreed that for obtaining said loan of Rs.12 crores, the complainant would pay him in advance Rs. 42.28 lakhs on account of advance interest and the service charges of the accused for arranging the funds. The complainant further alleged in the letter of complaint that the petitioner had fraudulently shown the complainant a cheque no.017749 dated 05.10.2021 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Manicktala Branch, issued in favour of complainant amounting to Rs. 10 crores and the petitioner told that the rest two crores would be disbursed shortly. Further case of the complainant is that being allured upon such representation, the complainant transferred Rs. 42.28 lakhs to the account of the accused as an advance interest and processing charges, but the said loan of Rs. 12 crores was never disbursed and it is now clear that the showing of the cheque No. 017749 was an evil design to defraud the complainant. Accordingly the instant proceeding started under section 406/417/420 IPC.

3. Being aggrieved by the impugned proceeding, Mr. Ayan Basu learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the dispute between the parties is essentially a civil dispute which has arisen due to alleged non refunding the amount of advance, which does not constitute any offence of cheating. In this context petitioner relied upon the judgment in Hiralal & others Vs. State of UP & others reported in 2009 (5) SCALE 418. He submits, even if the allegation contained in the complaint petition be given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, commission of an offence is not disclosed. The learned sessions judge has already observed in the associated Misc. case no. 133 of 2022, while considering anticipatory bail prayer of the petitioner that the cheque no. 017749 dated 05.10.2021 of PNB Manicktala Branch, as referred by the complainant in his complaint in support of inducement is lying blank with the accused and not a single word is written in the said cheque. The said cheque is still attached to the original cheque book. Accordingly, the complainant’s contention that the accused has shown a cheque of Rs. 10 crores which had induced him to transfer Rs. 42.28 lakhs to the accused is absolutely false. He further submits that in CRM (DB) 686 of 2022, pertaining to the cancellation of bail prayer on the same cause of action, the Division Bench of this court had observed that there is element of civil dispute between the parties.

4. Petitioner’s further contentions is that the complainant was suffering from financial crunch, due to paucity of funds and the petitioner herein/accused used to help the complainant with money and for which the opposite party no.2/complainant had issued post-dated cheques. In fa