SIRAJ GOOPTU Vs. DHITOSH MAITY & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of the criminal proceeding in connection with complaint case bearing C.R. No.802 of 2015 under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Paschim Medinipur.

(2.) The backdrop of the present revisional application is as follows:- On August 21, 2015 the opposite party/complainant filed a petition of complaint before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Medinipur which was registered as C.R. Case No.802 of 2015. The contents of the petition of complaint disclose that the petitioner/accused person is an Advocate of the High Court at Calcutta. It is alleged that the petitioner disclosed his connection with the officers of Directorate of School Education, West Bengal and assured to make arrangement for employment as primary teacher on payment of Rs.25,000/- per head. It is further alleged that the petitioner persuaded the complainant to contact with some candidates who are willing to work as primary school teacher and as such, the petitioner collected 68 candidates who were willing to give Rs.25,000/- each to the petitioner for getting appointment as teacher in primary school. On December 5, 2011 the petitioner went to Hotel Hindustan situated in Midnapur town, gave assurance to 68 candidates for appointment as teacher in primary school and collected Rs.22 lakh and other documents from those candidates. It is also alleged that those candidates did not receive any call letter for appearing in the interview. The complainant and the witnesses whose names are appearing in the petition of complaint were induced by the petitioner for persuading 68 candidates to make payment of Rs.22 lakh to the petitioner for getting appointment as teacher of the primary school, but ultimately, no appointment letter was received by those candidates including the complainant and the witnesses who were cheated by the petitioner. So, the opposite party/complainant has filed the petition of complaint before the court of learned Magistrate.

(3.) It appears from the materials on record that the opposite party/complainant has not disclosed the names of 68 candidates who are alleged to have been cheated by the petitioner except Sadananda Sarkar, Kapil Sen, Goutam Sinha, Prasanta Samanta, Sahadeb Jana and Somnath Dey whose names are cited as witnesses in the petition of complaint. Admittedly, the complainant was examined under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the court of learned Magistrate. Not a single witness cited in the petition of complaint was examined before the court of learned Magistrate under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Not a single candidate who is alleged to have given money to the petitioner has been examined before the court of learned Magistrate under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for formation of opinion of learned Magistrate about issuance of summons for the offence punishable under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code.