SHUBHABRATA DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. T.C. Khetri, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent No. 1 (State of Assam) and Mr. P. Bora, learned Counsel, for respondent No. 1.

(2.) This application has been presented under section 482 read with sections 397/401. Crimial P.C., 1973, for quashing the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No. 406/2007 corresponding to Tinsukia P.S. Case No. 190/07 under sections 120-B/420/406, I.P.C., which is pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia. In the aforesaid case, the investigating agency has completed the investigation and submitted charge-sheet on 31.10.2007 against the present petitioner only while discharging the other two accused persons named in the F.I.R.

(3.) Mr. Khetri, learned Senior Counsel, submits that in the F.I.R., allegation was made against the petitioner that on 17.4.2007, he along with his associates Sri Suman Banik and Mukesh Mishra, representing themselves as official representatives of M/s. Libra Enterprise assured the informant that their company would advance loan against mortgage of land and took an amount of Rs. 6,90,000.00 from the informant as processing and documentation fees and later on, he came to know that the said financial agency has no existence and thus, the petitioner and his associates had cheated the informant and misappropriated the money. But in the charge-sheet, under column No. 7, it is mentioned that the complainant had given the mortgage of land. If it is so, according to Mr. Khetri, the complainant himself had given the land in mortgage and no case has been made out under sections 120-B/420/406. I.P.C. and no charge can be framed under the aforesaid sections against the present accused petitioner. It would be abuse of process of law if the charge is framed and proceed against the petitioner. The aforesaid proceeding, is, therefore, liable to be quashed.