PURANMAL AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the help of this application, made under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the petitioner, who is accused in the complaint, which has given rise to Complaint Case No. 2159C/2007, presently pending in the Court 6f learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati, has sought for quashing of the complaint, whereby the learned Court below has taken, by its order, dated 04.05.2007, cognizance of offences under Sections 420/406 IPC and directed issuance of summons to the present petitioner as accused. I have heard Mr. B.M. Choudhury, learned counsel, for the petitioner, and Mr. K. Agarwal, learned counsel, for the complainant-opposite party.

(2.) The case of the complainant may, in brief, be described thus: The complainant Company along with another company, namely, Shyam Century Ferrous Ltd, planned to enter into the business of development of infrastructure including industrial estate and township. For this purpose, they were required to acquire land at various locations within and outside the State of Assam. The complainant accordingly approached the accused on coming to know that the accused was a competent and able person and sought for his help to enable the complainant acquire about 900 bighas of land, at village Sundarighopa, within the notified industrial area, at the lowest possible price, for development of industrial infrastructure. As a result of the negotiations, a Memorandum of Understanding (in short, 'MoU') was entered into, on 17.03.2006, between the accused and the complainant, whereby the accused undertook to procure the required area of land. In terms of the MoU, the accused was to help the complainant, as a facilitator, in acquiring about 900 bighas of land in the area aforementioned and, for this purpose, the accused was to, initially, enter into agreements for sale with various sellers of the land, in the said area, in his own name and these agreements, in course of time, were to be converted in favour of the proposed company on its incorporation. The MoU also stipulated that while procuring land, amount, if any, paid by the accused in purchasing the land, would be credited to the share of the accused and, in case his contribution exceeds rupees thirty lakhs, then, the excess amount would be refunded to him by the complainant. While negotiations were in progress, the accused took rupees three lakhs fifty thousand from the complainant, on 11.03.2006, in order to take necessary steps for furtherance of the complainant's project, because he informed the complainant-company that he was unable to advance any money to the proposed sellers of land. The complainant company, therefore, paid, in course of time, as much as Rs. 22,50,000/- to the accused. Despite having received the said sum of money, the accused has not yet transferred any land, in favour of the complainant company, as had been agreed to nor has he refunded the money. The accused has, therefore, according to the complainant, committed offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC.

(3.) While considering the present application, it needs to be noted that it is the complainant company, which had approached the accused-petitioner for helping them purchase land by entering into agreements for sale with the sellers of the land of the area aforementioned. There is nothing, in the complaint, to show that the agreements for sale were to be entered on behalf of the complainant company. This apart, the complainant company had the option of not paying any money to the accused to help him purchase land. Merely because the accused has been paid money by the complainant and the accused has not returned the money, the accused cannot be said to have committed offence either under Section 420 or 406 IPC in the complete absence of any accusation that the accused has not entered into agreements for sale as had been stipulated or that he has not paid the said money to the persons with whom he has entered into agreements. There is also nothing, in the complaint, to show that the land has already been purchased by the accused and the land, on having been purchased by the accused, is not being transferred by him to the complainant in terms of the MoU.