R V PALEGA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner moved this application invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the Jorabagan Police Station Case No. 126 dated 14/11/2006, under Section 420/120b of the Indian Penal Code and the result of investigation on the grounds as follows,

(2.) MR. Utpal Mazumder, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner with Mr. Pushan Kar and Mr. Sanjoy Bose reiterated and raised the same grounds as aforesaid in support of prayer for quashing. He further submitted that in connection with this case both the petitioners were arrested by the police and were granted bail on the very first day of their production in court on the basis of the aforesaid letter of the learned Advocate of the defacto complainant, wherefrom it has been transpired the outstanding was Rs. 3,58,939/- and the said facts was suppressed in the complaint. In this connection mr. Mazumder draws the attention of this Court to the order dated April 17, 2007. Mr. Mazumder in support of his contention relied on the following decisions ; relating to the case of, (i) M/s. Indian Oil Corporation v. M/s. NEPC india Ltd. and Ors. , reported in AIR. 2006 SC 2780: (2007)1 C Cr LR (SC) 52 ; (ii)Ram Biraji Devi and Anr. v. Umesh Kumar Singh and Anr. , reported in (2006) 6 scc 669 : (2006)2) C Cr LR (SC) 118, (iii) M/s. Kuber Rolling Mill Private Ltd. and Ors. v. The State of Gujrat and Anr. , reported in 2006 Cr LJ 2350, (iv) M/s. LMJ international Ltd. and Ors. v. Sfafe of Karnataka and Anr. , reported in 2007 Cr LJ 4437, (v) Veer Prakash Sharma v. Anil Kumar Agarwal and Anr. , reported in 2007 Cr LJ 3755 : (2008)1 C Cr LR (SC) 28, (vi) M/s. Monalisa Multiplast Ltd. v. M/s. TVS Finance and Services Ltd. , reported in 2007 Cr LJ (NOC) 545 (MAD.), (vii) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS and Anr. , reported in 2006 Cr LJ 4050 : (2007)1 C Cr LR (SC) 391, (viii) Rajnikant and Anr. v. The State of Bihar and Anr. , reported in 2006 Cr LJ (NOC) 67 (JHAR.), (ix) R. K. Sharma v. Sfafe of U. P. , reported in 2006 Cr LJ (NOC) 430 (ALL), (x) M/s. Shree Ramdeobaba Steel 'pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v, Sfafe of Jharkhand and anr. , reported in 2006 Cr LJ (NOC) 280 (JHAR), (xi) Milan Anandan v. Sfafe of u. P. and Ors. , reported in 2006 Cr LJ (NOC) 17 (ALL.), (xii) Coromondal Cements ltd. and Anr. v. Sfafe of A. P. and Ors. , reported in 2006 Cr LJ (NOC) 343 (A. P.), (xiii) S. Subhadra v. Adishwar India Ltd. and Anr. , reported in 2006 Cr LJ (NOC)440 (KAR ). (xiv) Aj'ay Mitra v. Sfafe of M. P. , reported in AIR 2003 SC 1069. On the other hand, Mr. Joy Sengupta appearing with Ms. Sreyashee biswas on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 submitted that none of this ground can be pressed into service to urge quashing of the First Information Report where police is in the midst of investigation and the same has not yet been completed. He further submitted all the points raised are disputed question of facts and cannot be decided at this stage. Mr. Sengupta denied about the receipt of Rs. 7 lakhs and submitted the same being a pure question of facts can only be adjudicated during the course of the trial after recording of evidence. The learned Advocate of the defacto-complainant relied on the following decisions; relating to the case of (I) Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi and Ors. , reported in (1999)3 SCC 259 : 1999 C Cr LR (SC) 234; (II) State of M. P. v. Awadh Kishore Gupta and Ors. , reported in (2004)-1 SCC 691 : 2004 C Cr LR (SC) 127; (III) State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, reported in (2005)1 scc 568 : (2005)1 C Cr LR (SC) 487; (IV) Mushtaq Ahamad v. Mohd. Habibur rehman Faizi and Ors. , reported in 1996 C Cr LR (SC) 199; (V) State of A. P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy and Anr. , reported in 2004 SCC (Cr) 1805. Mr. Swapan Kumar Mullick, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State produced the Case Diary and submitted that no quashing is permissible on the grounds as raised by the petitioners. He further submitted at this stage when investigation is going on there is no legitimate grounds for which the same be quashed before its completion. According to Mr. Mullick if during investigation it is finally found that from the materials collected by the police no case of cheating is made out then certainly the investigating agency would submit final report.

(3.) HEARD, the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused the materials on record and those appearing from the Case Diary.