V G SELVARAJ Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision is directed against the order dated 27. 7. 2005 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fifth Court, Calcutta in case no. C 366 of 2005. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate has issued summons upon the accused persons/petitioners under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by the said order of issuance of summons upon the accused/persons petitioners, they have preferred the revisional application.

(2.) THE fact in short is that in 1992 the accused persons/petitioners conducted an exhibition at Park Hotel to the effect that they would start a coconut plantation under the name of Greencold Coconut Plantation Farm and they invited the general public to book plots in the said farm promising high returns. Accordingly, the complainant of that complaint case invested Rs. 94,000 in between 1992 to 1996. Thereafter the company closed its office in Calcutta and the complainant paid another sum of Rs. 15,000 to get registration of the plot in case. The complainant paid also maintenance charges from time to time but with utter surprise he received notice from the concerned tehsildar to the effect that his plot had been acquired by the Government long ago mentioning the value as Rs. 8,000. The farm of the accused persons/petitioners did not give any reply to the notice of the complainant. Later he came to know that even not a single tree had been planted on the plot. Thus, the complainant had been cheated by the accused persons/petitioners.

(3.) HAVING considered the submissions of the learned Advocates of both the sides and the record, I find that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate issued summons upon the accused persons-petitioners under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. By the impugned order dated 27. 7. 2005 the complainant described the accused persons petitioners as the Director of the farm and he has stated that they are responsible of the affairs of the accused company. The question whether the accused persons/petitioners were responsible for the day to day conduct of the business of the company of the accused, shall be decided by taking evidence and not before. At present, there is no scope to deal with such matter. The learned lawyer for the accused persons/petitioners has submitted that the dispute is of a civil nature and so according to decision in JT 2006 (11) SC 133: 2000 Criminal Law Report SC 293 and 2002 (1) SCC 241 mere failure to keep the promise cannot be an offence and that when the dispute is of a civil nature, no criminal case lies. So he has submitted for quashing the proceedings. Now from the record, I find that the complaint is at the initial stage. Summons was issued against the accused persons/petitioners on the basis of evidence taken under Section 200 of criminal Procedure Code. The statement of sa under Section 200 of Criminal Procedure code is sufficient to note that there is a prima facie case of criminal intention on the part of the accused persons/petitioners. There is a statement on the part of the complainant that even not a single tree had been planted on the plot in case and that the land had already been acquired long ago by the government. So I hold that there is a prima facie case to proceed against the accused persons/petitioners. The learned lawyer for the accused persons/petitioners has also referred to ruling 2005 SCC 783 to show that when there is a delay in lodging the complaint the cognizance taken by the learned magistrate is not proper. At present, I find that the case is not barred by limitation by any provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and so prima facie the case is maintainable.