GURUDAS PURAKAIT Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused of the Complaint Case No. 1374 of 2007 under Section 420/406 of the IPC now pending before the learned A. C. J. M. , Baruipur prays for quashing of the proceeding.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Manjit Singh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Swapan Kumar Mallick, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party no. 1 and Smt. Jharna Biswas, learned advocate appearing for the state of West Bengal. The present petitioner assured the complainant (opposite party no. 1) of securing loan from State Bank of India, Nimpith Branch for extension of his tailoring business. He was taken to the Branch Manager who represented that a sum of Rs. 45,000/- could be advanced by way of loan if a sum of Rs. 40,000/- remains deposited for a period of three years. On 07-06-2003 the petitioner took the opposite party no. 1 to the bank and a Fixed Deposit for Rs. 40,000/- was made by opening an account. Loan was advanced. Petitioner signed as introducer. The petitioner allegedly obtained signature of the opposite party no. 1 on some blank papers and on some non-judicial stamp. The bank issued cheque book. Since the petitioner was a guarantor the opposite party no. 1 issued two cheques on being asked by the petitioner and the opposite party no. 1 was assured that those two cheques would be returned to him when the bank loan was repaid. The opposite party no. 1 tendered Rs. 70,000/- to the petitioner in ten monthly instalments of Rs. 10,000/- each for the purpose of depositing the same with the Bank but he did not pay the instalment amount with the bank. The period of Fixed Deposit expired and the opposite party no. 1 asked the petitioner to return the cheques which he refused. He lodged a G. D. E. with the Joynagar Police Station being G. D. E. No. 2687 dated 29th of March, 2006. Again on 28th of August, 2007 the opposite party no. 1 asked for return of the cheques which he refused once again and another G. D. E. being no. 2400 dated 28th of August, 2007 was lodged. Therefore, it was alleged that the petitioner cheated the opposite party no. 1 and thus committed offence under Section 420/406 of the IPC.

(3.) THE learned A. C. J. M. , Baruipur took cognizance of the offence and issued process. Mr. Manjit Singh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the complaint was lodged against the present petitioner by suppressing material fact that the opposite party no. 1 obtained loan of Rs. 100000/- on one occasion and loan of Rs. 2,54,546/- on another occasion and he issued a cheque for Rs. 1 lac being cheque no. 972227 dated 26th of July, 2006 drawn on the s. B. I. Nimpith Branch and a cheque for Rs. 2,54,546/- being cheque no. 972228 dated 26th of July, 2006 and when the said two cheques were presented they were bounced following which the present petitioner filed two complaint cases being no. C-5995 of 2006 and C-5996 of 2006 against the opposite party no. 1 under Section 138 of the N. I. Act in the year of 2006; and amidst the trial of the two cases the opposite party no. 1 filed the aforesaid Complaint Case of cheating, and criminal breach of trust and accordingly it is submitted that the said Complaint Case against the present petitioner should be quashed.