MANISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application has been filed by the petitioners/accused persons to quash a criminal proceeding initiated on a complaint, filed by the complainant/opposite party No.2 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was registered as GR. Case No. 37/13, for the offence under Sections 420/465/468/477A/120B of the Indian Penal Code, in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Asansol.

(2.) The allegation raised against the petitioners is that even after receiving services from complainant/opposite party No.2 as a transport contractor for a considerable period of time, petitioners never raised any objection about the quality of the service rendered together with execution of work, supposed to be discharged by the complainant/O.P. No.2, yet the petitioners withheld payments of bills raised by complainant to the tune of Rs. 7,00,000/- (rupees seven lakhs) approx., for the non-payment of 10% of kickback of the bill amount. That for protest being raised by the complainant/O.P. No.2, he was asked to settle his claim to the extent of Rs.7,88,960/- (rupees seven lakhs eighty eight thousand nine hundred and sixty) approx., foregoing the actual bill amount.

(3.) The complainant/O.P. No.2, after being approached by the ACC Ltd., consented to be appointed as a transporting agent of ACC cement, for transporting cement from the manufacturing site at Mudhukunda, Purulia to various destinations, settling terms of agreement inclusive of the charges to be paid by ACC Ltd. by an agreement. Since 1996, in the capacity as such, the complainant/O.P. No.2 continued to render service to ACC Ltd. receiving payments for the service rendered, though keeping some portion as unpaid. The service of the complainant/O.P. No.2 reached the satisfaction level of the ACC Ltd., and he was also entrusted with the further job of canvassing agent in July, 2007, which was supposed to be discharged in his own name, independent of the name of firm of O.P. No. 2. The management of the ACC Ltd. faced a change in 2010 leaving impact on the administration of ACC Ltd., supposedly discharged by petitioners No.1 to 4, who are high officials of the ACC Ltd. (accused No. 5), and arraigned as accused persons in the petition of complainant. Commercial transactions held between the parties were maintained with use of computer. The non-payment of 10% kickback of bill amount, raised by the complainant/O.P. No.2, prompted accused persons/petitioners to hatch up a conspiracy to deceive the complainant/O.P. No. 2, and to cause wrongful loss to him, and accordingly tampered the relevant actual electronic records regarding transaction held between the parties, and deleted the actual records from the software of computer, and thereby induced the high officials of ACC Ltd. to believe that the complainant was actually entitled to get Rs. 7,00,000/- (rupees seven lakhs) approx. only, and thus compelling the complainant/O.P. No.2 to forego the rest of the amount. In the mean time, the accused persons issued noticed, dated 21.08.2012 terminating transport agreement of complainant/O.P. No. 2.