MANORANJAN DAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been charge sheeted under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Siliguri Police Station Case No. 135 of 2008 now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, 1st Court, Siliguri. It needs no mention that a chargesheet, before the commencement of the trial can only be quashed when it is found that on the allegation made in the First Information Report and the evidentiary materials collected in support of the same, no case is made out against the accused persons on the face of the same and without controverting the correctness of the materials.

(2.) The petitioner is an area manager of L.I.C. It is the case of the de facto complainant that he entered into an agreement for sale with the promoter, the accused Arup Nandi and booked a particular flat but after the construction was complete, the accused/promoter sold out the said flat to a third party. It is his further case that for purchase of the said flat the petitioner entered into a loan agreement with L.I.C. Housing Finance Limited when a sum of Rs. 4.80 lakhs was sanctioned but without any intimation to him, a sum of Rs. 3.25 lakhs was paid to the promoter and the promoter took the cheque from the present petitioner.

(3.) Now it is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner on the face of the allegations made in the FIR and the materials collected in support of the same, it cannot be said that petitioner is, prima facie, guilty of an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted there is no allegations what role petitioner has played in the commission of the offence, except that he handed over the cheque to the promoter and in fact, pursuant to the terms of agreement and in discharge of his official duty after sanction of the loan amount the cheque was issued. The learned counsel for the petitioner further draws my attention to the order passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Siliguri where both the accused/promoter and the petitioner was impleaded as defendant and submitted that it would be evident from the said order that the promoter Arup Nandi was found liable and he was directed to execute the sale deed upon payment of balance amount of Rs. 1.60 lakhs to him by the de facto complainant and otherwise to return the amount to the complainant with interest and with intimation to the L.I.C. Housing Finance Limited and in the said proceeding nothing adverse was found against the petitioner. It is further contended according to the de facto complainant the petitioner was pressurizing him for repayment of the loan but asking for repayment of loan, on behalf of this company, petitioner cannot be held liable for committing any wrong far less any criminal offence.