NARENDRA KUMAR SURANA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of proceeding being G.R. Case No. 1228/2012 pending before the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 16th Court, Calcutta arising our of Burrabazar Police Station Case No. 186/12 dated 30.04.2012 under Sec. 420 of the Indian Penal Code with all orders passed therein inclusive of order dated 17.11.18 rejecting the prayer for discharge.

(2.) The opposite party No.2 Hemraj Bengani/ de facto complainant submitted a petition of complaint under Sec. 156(3) Crimial P.C. to Court against petitioner Surendra Kumar Surana and his brother, who run a partnership business of "Jute Supplier" in the name and style of M/s Surendra Commercial Syndicate, alleging commission of offence under Sec. 420 Penal Code. The complainant/opposite party No.2 runs a business of "commission agent". The complainant's family comprised of himself, his wife, and a daughter, who is now perusing her higher study in foreign country. Admittedly complainant/opposite party maintained a good relationship with petitioner/accused and his brother giving valuable help and advice for management and marketing of the Jute business for betterment and enhancement. It was alleged that taking advantage of such good relationship, petitioner accused and his brother approached complainant for financial assistance agreeing to repay the amount given as loan on demand. Thus on 13.02.10 and 21.09.10 the complainant/opposite party lent money in the form of financial assistance amounting to Rs.7,50,000.00 lakh (6,50,000 + 1,00,000.00). Subsequently the petitioner/accused and his brother, who has been sought to be discharged ultimately after police investigation, returned back Rs.1,50,000.00 to complainant to winover as confidence. Thereafter again Rs.2,50,000.00 were given to petitioner and his brother on 01.03.11 and 26.04.11. Likewise the payment made on 25.10.10, the petitioner accused again repaid Rs.2,00,000.00 to complainant/opposite party on 3rd June, 2011. Thus in the process the petitioner took away a sum of Rs.9,00,000.00 from the wife of the complainant/opposite party, other than the amount already taken as loan.

(3.) In was further alleged that on the pretext of treatment of family members of accused persons, the petitioner even approached the daughter of complainant/opposite party, Miss Priti Bengani, presently perusing her higher study in Amarica, and thus managed to obtain Rs.13,00,000.00 from her own account for undertaking treatment of family members. The specific allegation levelled against the petitioner and his brother is that on different dates, and on different pretext, the petitioner/accused and his brother together fraudulently obtained a huge amount totalling to Rs.30,00,000.00 from complainant/opposite party's family members taking advantage of their good relationship. When complainant/opposite party visited the office of petitioner/accused on 11.11.11, the amount taken, as loan was flatly denied giving a surprise to complainant/opposite party. The petitioner/accused thus even denied to have taken any amount as loan at any point of time from the complainant/opposite party. The complainant/opposite party then went to Burrabazar Police Station to lodge complaint by narrating the aforesaid facts. As the police did not respond to his allegation by taking any appropriate action against the petitioner and his brother, the petition of complaint was straightway submitted to Court with a prayer for investigation treating the petition of complaint as FIR. It was contended in such complaint that by reason of the exercise of fraudulent intention on the part of the petitioner /accused and his brother, the complaint was induced to pay a sum of Rs.30,00,000.00 as loan on different pleas to petitioner/accused believing upon the state and extent of representation of the accused persons. On the basis of the complaint, police held investigation and submitted chargesheet under Sec. 420 Penal Code against petitioner/accused with a prayer for discharge as against the brother of the petitioner, namely Surendra Kumar Surana for want of evidence being collected against him.