BATA INDIA LIMITED Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application dated 25. 04. 2007 under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. prayer is made for quashing of a proceeding being New Market Police Station case No. 40 dated 21-03-2007 under Section 120b/420 of the IPC corresponding to G. R. Case No. 602 of 2007 under Section 120b/420 of the IPC.

(2.) ONE Sambhu Maiti who is the O. P. No. 2 herein lodged a petition with the learned C. M. M. Calcutta against the present petitioners alleging the following facts : -O. P. No. 2 carries on business of contract job of carpentry and the job includes Interior and Exterior Decoration and furnishing under different reputed Interior and Exterior Decoration Company and the business is mainly connected with the labour contract. He has been associated with O. P. No. 3, proprietor of M/s. R. D. G. Interior Decoration Exterior Architecture since 1999. The said O. P. No. 3 Mr. Sagar Roy undertook a job of Interior decoration and furnishing at the Head Office of Bata India Ltd. at 6a, S. N. Banerjee Road, Calcutta-700 013 and the O. P. No. 2 was entrusted by the o. P. No. 3 for carpentry job of the said project on contract basis and pursuant to the same he undertook and completed the said job by deploying his staff and received the payments in time. During the second week of February 2004 the said Mr. Sagar Roy called on the O. P. No. 2 in the registered office of the Bata India Ltd. at Calcutta and asked him to do some Interior and Exterior Decoration job in the Corporate Office of the Bata India Ltd. at gurgaon in the State of Haryana. Mr. Sagar Roy along with the officials of the Bata India Ltd. who are the present petitioners herein including their architect i. e. Mr. Monohar Dey explained to the O. P. No. 2 about the nature of the job of Interior and Exterior Decoration to be undertaken in the Bata india Ltd. 's office at Gurgaon and the drawings of the carpentry job was shown to him. The project required deployment of 50/60 specialized carpenters and the time required for successful completion of the project was estimated to be 2/3 months. The O. P. No. 2 told Mr. Sagar Roy and the petitioners that he would be able to do the job with his team provided residential accommodation was arranged for him and his team at Gurgaon and day-to-day payments were made in addition to payment of outstation work charges. After consultation with the petitioners Mr. Sagar Roy requested the O. P. No. 2 to undertake the job on short term credit basis and assured of payment whenever the said Mr. Sagar Roy would receive payment from Bata India Ltd. and such assurances given by Mr. Sagar Roy were duly affirmed by the present petitioners who are accused Nos. 2-6 as per the petition. Work started at Gurgaon from 12-02-2004 on the basis of the drawings supplied by the Architect of Bata India Ltd. and with the material supplied by the said Mr. Sagar Roy and the sum of Rs. 1 lac was paid to o. P. No. 2 by the said Mr. Sagar Roy on 23-02-2004 and O. P. No. 2 was requested by the said Mr. Sagar Roy to continue with the work without any break and thus the work was undertaken. By the end of the February 2004 the amount of Rs. 1 lac that was paid earlier was exhausted for payment to the labourers of the O. P. No. 2 and the said O. P. No. 2 requested Mr. Sagar roy for further payment. Mr. Sagar Roy requested the O. P. No. 2 to continue the work till the middle of March 2004 with assurance of payment by the time. But the labourers of O. P. No. 2 along with his team returned to Kolkata on 01-03-2004 and by then more than Rs. 1 lac was found due with Mr. Sagar Roy. On 08-03-2004 Mr. Sagar Roy called the o. P. No. 2 at the office of the Bata India Ltd. at Kolkata arid again in the presence of the officials of the Bata India Ltd. be requested the O. P. No. 2 to continue and complete the job at Gurgaon on short term credit basis arid issued a letter dated 08-03-2004 to the O. P. No. 2 stating the work to be done at the said Gurgaon Office of Bata India Ltd. with assurance of making payments in a short while as and when he would receive payment from the bata India Ltd. The said Mr. Sagar Roy in presence of the senior officials of Bata India Ltd. who are the petitioners herein told the O. P. No. 2 that on earlier occasions he could not make payment as the petitioners herein failed to make payment although the promise to make payment to Mr. Sagar Roy for the work done by the O. P. No. 2 at Gurgaon was made but the petitioners failed to keep up the promise. Mr. Sagar Roy further stated in the presence of the officials of Bata India Ltd. that this time there would be no difficulty in making payments as the senior officials of Bata India Ltd. had specifically assured that they would ensure payment to the O. P. No. 2 and his team in respect of the work to be done at Gurgaon. The officials of the Bata India ltd. further confirmed and ratified the statements of Mr. Sagar Roy and requested the O. P. No. 2 to agree to complete the job at Gurgaon when an assurance of making of proper payments. In spite of such proposal the o. P. No. 2 was not convinced with the assurance made by the officials of the Bata India Ltd. and complete the carpentry job in the Corporate office of the company at Gurgaon and Mr. P. K. Nag, the petitioner No. 2 at the request of the other officials of Bata India Ltd. agreed to give the O. P. No. 2 a written assurance regarding payment and to that effect Mr. S. J. Davis the petitioner no. 2 as Managing Director of the company issued a letter dated 08-03-2004 to the O. P. No. 2 and requested him to continue with the work with assurance of ensuring payment to the said Mr. Sagar roy so that Mr. Sagar Roy might be able to disburse payments to the O. P. No. 2. Being induced by such representations of the high officials of Bata india Ltd. the O. P. No. 2 along with his team again proceeded to Gurgaon and resumed the job. On 15-03-2004 the said Mr. Sagar Roy made further payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- only. However, the O. P. No. 2 continued the work of the said project at Gurgaon without any further payment till the end of May 2004 when the entire work was satisfactorily completed under the supervision of various officials of Bata India Ltd. , Mr. Sagar Roy (O. P. No. 3) and the concerned Architect. As further payment was not forthcoming notwithstanding the representations and assurances of the officials of Bata india Ltd. arid Mr. Sagar Roy being the team members of the O. P. No. 2 were not willing to continue the project work but still then the O. P. No. 2 was repeatedly assured by the officials of the Bata India Ltd. to continue with the work and not to worry about payment as payment would be made in a short while and on such representation and assurances the O. P. No. 2 completed the work. After completion of the job of carpentry Mr. Sagar Roy issued a completion certificate confirming the satisfactory nature of the job done by the O. P. No. 2. Neither during the work nor after completion of the job either Mr. Sagar Roy or the present petitioners who are the high officials of Bata India Ltd. raised any dispute with regard to the workmanship of the o. P. No. 2 and his team and it was only after completion of the job that the o. P. No. 2 raised a bill for Rs. 12,57,435/- and handed over the same to mr. Sagar Roy and the sum excluded Rs. 2, 50,000/- which was paid earlier in two instalments. But payments were not made to the O. P. No. 2 despite repeated assurances and he was requested to wait for sometime more. Since then the O. P. No. 2 has been continuously requesting Mr. Sagar roy to make payment but on all the occasions Mr. Roy refused to make payment on the plea that he had not received payments from Bata India ltd. and has already approached the legal forum for realization of the payments against Bata India Ltd. and on receipt of payment from Bata India ltd. he would pay back to the O. P. No. 2. On account of the project the o. P. No. 2 had to make payments to his labourers upon taking loan from his friends and relatives and at the time when the petition was filed the O. P. No. 2 was in deep financial trouble. It is alleged in the petition that the O. P. No. 2 now realized that the said Mr. Sagar Roy along with the officials of the Bata India Ltd. intentionally deceived the O. P. No. 2 and dishonestly induced him to do the job in respect of the said project at Gurgaon on the assurance of making payments for the job done by the O. P. No. 2 and his men and agent but now it transpired that there had been no intention to make payment and fraudulently induced the O. P. No. 2 to complete the job which the O. P. No. 2 would not have undertaken and continued with and completed the job had the O. P. No. 2 would be realised that he so deceived by such false and frivolous representation of the accused persons arid thus the accused persons including the present petitioner in collusion with each other have cheated the O. P. No. 2 to the tune of Rs. 12,57,435/ -. Finally on 29-09-2006 the O. P. No. 2 met with the said Mr. Sagar Roy and requested him to release payments of Rs. 12,57,435/- for the work done by the O. P. No. 2 and his men but Mr. Sagar Roy denied payments till he would receive his payment from the Bata India Ltd. The O. P. No. 2 then visited the office of the Bata India Ltd. at 6a, S. N. Banerjee Road, Calcutta 700 013 and requested the officials of the Bata India Ltd. for release of the payments since at the very inception and during the work of the project the high officials of Bata India Ltd. who are the petitioners herein had assured the O. P. No. 2 of making payment after of completion of the job, but instead of making payment to him he was harassed and humiliated. It has been alleged that the works were undertaken by the O. P. No. 2 at his cost and expenses on the basis of good relation with Mr. Sagar Roy and written assurance of the high officials of Bata India Ltd. It has been contended in the revisional application that there is no just cause or reason to withhold payment of Rs. 12,57,435/ -. The O. P. No. 2 upon coining to know of the evil resigns of the officials of the Bata India Ltd. and Mr. Sagar Roy to commit cheating and perpetrate fraud by inducing the O. P. No. 2 to undertake the jobs with false assurance of payment submitted a representation dated 28-09-2006 to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, detective Department, Lalbazar, Calcutta praying for looking into the matter by taking appropriate steps against the culprits. One of the said representations dated 25-09-2006 was submitted by the O. P. No. 2, to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detective Department, Lalbazar. Thus it is alleged that the petitioners committed the offence of cheating and criminal conspiracy by not making payment In terms of the agreement.

(3.) THIS petition was sent by the learned C. M. M. to New Market Police station for investigation and during the course of investigation this revisional application has been filed on the ground that the petition of complaint/fir did not disclose any cognizable offence against the officials of the Bata india Ltd.