RAJU GUPTA Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. N. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner who has submitted that the facts of the case pertains to an FIR lodged by one Smti. Marthilina M. Sangma on 5/1/2024 before the Officer-in-Charge, Tura Police Station, West Garo Hills wherein it was alleged that the informant had placed an order for Tiles and other accessories from the petitioner's firm/Akriti Sanimart for a consideration of ? 3,48,003/- for which a total payment of ? 3,00,000/- have been made by the complainant in favour of the petitioner/proprietor. However till the date of filing of the FIR the proprietor/petitioner has failed to deliver the goods which act constitute an offence under the relevant provisions of the IPC, including Sec. 420.

(2.) The learned counsel has further submitted that on the basis of the said FIR, investigation was launched and Tura P.S. Case No. 01(01)2024 under Ss. 406/417/420 IPC was registered. In due course the petitioner was in receipt of a notice under Sec. 41A CrPC calling upon him to appear before the I/O on 31/3/2024 at 11 a.m. However, the petitioner could not appear before the said I/O on the said date on the ground that he is suffering from prolonged illness and the police station is also located far from his residence. To this effect, the petitioner has also intimated the I/O vide his letter dated Nil (Annexure-3 to this petition).

(3.) Again, the learned counsel has submitted that the apparent dispute between the informant and the petitioner involves a dispute on a monetary transaction for which the informant have other forums to avail of instead of preferring a criminal complaint. It is, therefore, prayed that under the circumstances, the petitioner may be allowed to go on pre-arrest bail with any conditions fit to be imposed by this Court. It is also the assurance of the petitioner that he will fully cooperate with the I/O as far as the investigation is concerned.