BIJAY AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have prayed for quashing of the criminal proceeding of G.R. no.1242 of 2015 arising out of Burrabazar Police Station Case no.273 dated May 7, 2015 under Sections 120B/420/406/506 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.

(2.) The opposite party no.2 filed a written complaint before the Officer-in-Charge of Burrabazar Police Station on the basis of which Burrabazar Police Station Case no.273 dated May 7, 2015 was registered. It is alleged in the said written complaint that the opposite party no.2 gave loan of Rs.25 lac to one Ganpat Agarwal and the present petitioners on assurance that the loan will be repaid within reasonable period of time. The loan was given by issuing cheques in favour of the company by which Ganpat Lal Agarwal, his son and other members of the family have been carrying on family business. The interest accrued on the principal amount of loan was Rs.16,07,580.00 till March 31, 2015. Mr. Ganpat Agarwal gave last account confirmation in connection with the loan transaction between the parties till April 1, 2013. The amount of loan or interest accrued thereon was not repaid by the petitioners and Ganpat Lal Agarwal in spite of repeated requests by the opposite party no.2. As a result, the opposite party no.2 filed the written complaint before the Officer-in-Charge of Burrabazar Police Station for initiating criminal proceeding against Ganpat Lal Agarwal, his son Pawan Kumar Agarwal and others on the allegation of committing offence under Sections 420/406/120B/506 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners being the accused persons in the said criminal case challenged the said criminal proceeding by filing this revision under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) Mr. Sabyachi Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is long standing business relation between the opposite party no.2 and the present petitioners. By referring to the statement of accounts in connection with the said loan confirmed by the opposite party no.2, Mr. Banerjee submits that the company run by the petitioners received loan of Rs.35 lac from the opposite party no.2 on different dates with effect from Aug. 4, 2008 and substantial amount of interest accrued on the principal loan amount and also the principal amount of Rs.10 lac were repaid from time to time by issuing cheques in favour of the opposite party no.2. According to Mr. Banerjee, the company of the petitioners repaid loan amount along with interest till March 31, 2012, but the company of the petitioners could not make payment of the balance amount of loan for failure of the family business and as such the petitioners had no dishonest intention from the very inception of the transaction. The sum and substance of submission of Mr. Banerjee is that no offence is made out from the written complaint filed by the opposite party no.2, as the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. He further submits that the opposite party no.2 made last confirmation of the statement of accounts in connection with the loan on March 31, 2012 and as such the opposite party no.2 could not file civil suit against the petitioners for realisation of balance amount of loan after March 31, 2015 and as such the opposite party no.2 has instituted this criminal proceeding against the petitioners and others in order to create pressure for realisation of balance amount of loan. Mr. Banerjee has relied on unreported decision of this Court in CRR no.1891 of 2013 (K.S. Oils Limited Vs. Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited) in support of his above contention.