PABITRA NAZARY Vs. DIPAK CHAKRAVORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Tongpok Pongener, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused as well as Mr. P.B. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant.

(2.) The present criminal petition has been filed praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned proceeding of C.R Case No. 12/2014 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dimapur, Nagaland.

(3.) Mr. Tongpok Pongener, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint case before the learned JMFC, Dimapur and the same was registered as C.R Case No. 12/2014 against the petitioner/accused. Therein the complaint petition, it was alleged that the respondent/complainant was the sole business representative of one Shri Viheshe Sema and the petitioner/accused had approached the respondent/complainant on various occasions to give some amount of money in order to avail supply order. Accordingly, the respondent/complainant had paid the petitioner/accused certain amount of money on different occasions totaling to an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/-. It was further alleged in the complaint petition that the petitioner/accused had entered into an agreement with Shri Viheshe Sema on 03-10-2012 with the condition that the petitioner/accused would avail supply work for supply of CGI Sheets at Kokrajhar under the rehabilitation work amounting to Rs. 2 crores and hand over the work order within ten days with effect from the date of execution of the agreement along with other terms and conditions and accordingly an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs was paid as advance through the agreement. Further, it was also agreed between the parties that in the event of failure on the part of the petitioner/accused to do so, the petitioner/accused shall be liable to pay interest @ 15% per month against the advance amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the learned JMFC, Dimapur took cognizance of the offence and thereafter issued process against the petitioner/accused under Section 420 IPC. It is submitted that the respondent/complainant was only a witness to the agreement signed between the petitioner/accused and the said Shri Viheshe Sema. He, therefore, submits that the respondent/complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint petition before the learned JMFC, Dimapur and therefore submits that the proceeding of C.R. Case No. 12/2014 be quashed and set aside.