STATE Vs. NIHAR RANJAN GUHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant in this case is one Shri Mohan Lal, a retired Station Master. In 1943 he sent rs. 2,500/- to the Mica Mining and Trading Company Limited, Calcutta, for the purchase of one hundred shares of the value of Rs. 25/- per share: Shri Nikhil Ranjan Guha Thakurta was the managing Director of this company at that time. The shares required by the complainant could not be purchased for some reason and so the sum of Rs. 2,500/- together with interest amounting to Rs. 2,612/s/- was sent to him by a cross-cheque. The complainant instead of presenting the cross-cheque through a bank wanted to cash it personally which he could not do he, therefore, returned the cheque to the above company. Thereafter, the company sent a circular letter intimating to the complainant that negotiations were going on for the purchase of the premier Mica Company Limited; a copy of this circular letter has been filed in this case. After the receipt of this circular letter it appeal's that the complainant asked the company to purchase one unit of shares worth Rs. 5,000/- for him. This letter was probably sent to the company on 9-9-1944. In reply to this letter the complainant was informed that one unit of 10 shares would be worth rs. 5,000/- and the complainant was asked to send the balance of Rs. 2,387/8/- in order to make up the total amount of Rs. 5,000/ -. It is not known when this balance of Rs. 2,387/8/- was actually seat by the complainant to the company. The company purchased one unit of 10 shares for Rs. 5,000/- and sent share certificates to the complainant in 1944. In 1952 the complainant filed a complaint under Section 420, I. P. C. against Nikhil Ranjan Guha Thakurta and others that they had cheated him and instead of purchasing shares worth Rs. 5,000/- they had purchased snares which were really worth Rs. 1,000/- as the face value of the 10 shares which were purchased was only Rs. 1,000/ -. After this complaint was, filed a summons was issued to Nikhil Ranjan Guha Thakurta alone and he moved an application under Section 561a, Cr. P. C in the High Court for quashing the proceeding on the ground that it was an abuse of the process of the Court and had been started against him in order to harass him. This application was made on 16-6-1953 and 4-1-1954 was fixed for its disposal. Notice of this application was served on the complainant opposite party and he appeared through a counsel on 4-1-1954 and prayed for three weeks time to file a counter affidavit denying the allegations contained in the affidavit which had been filed on behalf of Nikhil Ranjan Guha thakurta in support of the application under Section 561a, Cr. P. C. The prayer was allowed and the case was adjourned to 16-2-1954, It appears that on that date no counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the complainant. The application under Section 581a, Cr. P. C. was allowed on 16-2-1954 and the proceedings in the Court of the Magistrate were quashed

(2.) ON 13-5-1954 Mohan Lal complainant moved an application for the rehearing of me case under Section 561a, Cr, P. C. and also for the prosecution of Sri Nihar Ranjan Guha Tliakurta for making certain false allegations in the affidavit which had been filed bv him in support of the application under Section 561a, Cr. P. C. It appears that no notice of this application was served on the opposite party,

(3.) ON 14-7-1954 after perusing the affidavit filed by Mohan Lal complainant, Harish Chandra J. was of the opinion that the allegations contained in paras 3, 7, 12 and 16 of the affidavit of Nihar ranjan Guha Thakurta were prima facie false. He, therefore, ordered that a notice might be issued to him to appear and show came why a complaint should pot be made against him for his prosecution under Section 193, I. P. C, for making deliberate false statements in the affidavit. In response to this notice he has appeared through a counsel. It is contended on his behalf that no prima facie case under Section 193, I. P. C. has been made oub and that it is not expedient in the interest of justice that this prosecution should be ordered.