SUBHRA MAJUMDAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 13.04.2017 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Serampore, Hooghly in Criminal Motion No. 86/2013, thereby affirming the order dated 22.05.2012 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Serampore, Hooghly in GR Case No. 628/2006 corresponding to Serampore Police Station Case No. 177/2006 dated 21.08.2006 under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 120B of the Penal Code and Sections 13A, 13B and 14 of the West Bengal Building (Regulation of Promotion of Construction & Transfer by Promoters) Act, by which the prayer for discharge of the petitioner was rejected.

(2.) In 2006 the present de facto complainant/opposite party no. 2 filed an application under Section 156 (3) of the Code praying for registration of a First Information Report and investigation into the offences committed by the present petitioner and six others under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Penal Code and Sections 13A, 13B and 14 of the West Bengal Building (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act. In the said petition of complaint, the opposite party no. 2, among other things, alleged that she had a shop room in the ground floor of the premises being 527, GT Road, Ballavpore, Police Station Serampore, District Hooghly (the said shop room, for short); the accused nos. 1 to 3 were her landlords while the accused nos. 4, 5 and 6 (the present petitioner) were the partners of one M/s Fairdeal Constructions who were developers, promoters of property in the locality; the opposite party no. 2 and all the accused including the present petitioner entered into an agreement to demolish the existing building in which the said shop room was situated and in its place to construct a multi-storied building; the opposite party no. 2 was to be given a new shop room measuring 300 sq.ft. along with proportionate share in the common facilities and amenities in the proposed new building; induced by the promises given by the accused, she vacated her shop room; it was also agreed that the owner shall be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- per month if the said shop room was not made ready within four months from the date of such agreement; although construction work for the new building was completed in the year 2004, yet the accused did not deliver the possession of the said new shop room to the de facto complainant; the accused did not even honour their promise to pay Rs. 1,80,000/- that they agreed to subsequently in lieu of non-delivery of possession of the said shop room.

(3.) Pursuant to a direction passed under Sections 156 (3) of the Code, the instant First Information Report was registered on 23.08.2006. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Agency submitted a charge sheet against all the accused including the present petitioner on 04.11.2006. On 22.05.2012, the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Serampore, Hooghly was pleased to reject the petitioner's prayer for discharge from the case. The petitioner challenged the said order in revision before the Learned Sessions Court, but the same was turned down by the impugned order passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Serampore, Hooghly in Criminal Motion No. 86/2013.