DEBASISH ROY CHOWDHURY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE: Id. A. C. J. M. , Sealdah, since directed the police to investigate and report in complaint case No. 653 of 1990, dated 30. 5. 1990, dated 30. 5. 1990, for commission of an offence of cheating, the Petitioner has come up before: me for quashing in connection with Entally P. S. Case No. 137, dated 10th July, 1990.

(2.) IN brief, the facts of the case are that the revisionist borrowed a sum of Rs. 75,000/- during the currency of the year 1986 from S. B. Sur, the de facto complainant for promotion of his business. But the amount was never returned, in consequence an F. I. R. ensued. The Id. A. C. J. M. on 30. 5. 90, directed an investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. , 1973. The exploration of facts from the revisional application reveals that the transaction was preeminently a loan on payment of interest devoid of mens rea. The revisionist, although, paid a nominal amount in pursuance of his own offer dated 27. 6. 88 as taken payment of liquidation of loan but receipt thereof, since not granted, the subsequent payment of instalment did not occur.

(3.) THE FIR since does not disclose any cognizable offence, it is therefore, liable to be quashed along with the complaint the genesis of the occurrence is a civil dispute for which approach to the criminal forum is a bar. It is a civil liability adjudicable and enforceable in the civil forum alone. In the background of the publicity of the aforenoted facts, the quashing of proceeding is the appropriate relief in order to prevent miscarriage of justice.