SOURAV KEDIA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revisional application has been preferred under Section 482 of the cr. P. C. praying for quashing of G. R. case No. 1035 of 2002, as pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore.

(2.) CASE of the petitioners is that G. R. case No. 1035 of 2002 under sections 406/420/34/120b of the Indian Penal Code was started on the basis of a written complaint filed by the opposite party No. 2 alleging therein that subrata Nandi, proprietor of M/s. R. K. Traders approached the petitioners for appointing him as super-stockist under the petitioners. Such request was accepted and said Subrata Nandi was appointed as the consignee agent-cum-super-stockist by the petitioners for marketing their products within the specified area, as mentioned in the letter dated 23. 12. 1997. On 13. 7. 1998 a new agreement was entered into in between the parties incorporating there in certain terms and conditions appointing said R. K. Traders for marketing entire products of the petitioners within the territory of North 24 Parganas and South Nadia with effect from 13. 7. 1998. Pursuant to the said agreement the complainant claimed that an amount of Rs. 60,000/- was paid to the petitioners, who supplied 2. 5 M. T. of goods worth Rs. 50 lakhs to one Golam Ali Mandal of Bangaon at the instruction of the complainant. The complainant has claimed that the goods were substandard. As a result of this, and due to the misappropriation of money by the petitioners the complainant incurred loss. It has further been claimed in the petition of complaint that as the complainant suffered huge loss due to the activities of the accused persons, he visited the dealers and came to know that the accused persons had no valid license to produce zinc sulphate 21 per cent and high zinc surya shakti etc. The complainant demanded supply of the necessary documents from the accused persons. But they failed to produce the same. According to the complainant, the accused persons used to run the said business in the name of two firms namely, East Coast Industry and East india Limited in a clandestine manner. They have no document for manufacturing the articles for which there was an agreement in between the parties. By making false representation the accused persons induced the complainant to deliver money in their favour and ultimately the accused persons dishonestly misappropriated the money in gross violation of the agreement. From the very inception, the accused persons had the intention to cause wrongful loss to the complainant. According to the complainant, the accused persons cheated him and also other cultivators at large by not supplying proper materials, as agreed in between the parties. The complainant has claimed that he is running the business in the name of his son Subrata Nandi who informed the matter to the local P. S. in writing. On the basis of such information, a police case was started. The matter was investigated and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned Advocate for the petitioners there was a business transaction in between the parties and dispute arose amongst them for the alleged violation of the terms and conditions, as mentioned in the agreement. As such, Mr. Bagchi, learned Advocate for the petitioners argued that since it is purely a civil dispute and since there was no intention of cheating from the very beginning, the criminal case is not sustainable in the eye of law and as such, it should be quashed.