SIDDHARTHA ROY KARMAKAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused petitioner has filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order dated 09.07.2012 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore in connection with Ghola Police Station Case No. 389 of 2011.

(2.) According to the petitioner, learned Magistrate while taking cognizance failed to appreciate that even in a case where allegations are made in regard to failure on the part of the accused to keep the promise, in the absence of culpable intention at the time of making initial promise being absent, no offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code can be said to have been made out. He further contended that it is a dispute of civil nature and it should not be allowed to be the subject matter of a criminal offence.

(3.) The basis for setting the law into mention is an application under Section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the opposite party, in which he had prayed for initiation of a criminal proceeding under Section 406, 420 and 422 of Indian Penal Code. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat has considered the said application and directed the police station concerned to register a case. In the FIR, it has been stated that the accused petitioner had entered into an agreement with the present opposite party that the opposite party will act as an agent of him for persuasion of his Land Acquisition Cases pending before the Land Acquisition Collector, Burdwan and if the said compensation amount is paid he would in turn pay 25 per cent of the compensation amount to the present opposite party as the service charge of the agent. The opposite party in his allegation had contended that he had acted as an agent of the accused petitioner and looked after the Land Acquisition Cases on behalf of the petitioner. Curiously enough, when the compensation amount was paid to the accused petitioner, they did not pay any single farthing in terms of the agreement which was notarized by both parties. According to him, the accused petitioner has committed cheating and breach of trust also.