SUTAPA CHAKRABORTY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed the present application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the order dated 25.5.2006 passed by the learned Sub.Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No.948(C) of 2006 whereby finding a prima facie case to be made out under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code they have been summoned to face trial.

(2.) The opposite party no.2 has filed the present complaint on 12.4.2006 in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna alleging inter alia that the petitioners claiming themselves to be the owners of M/s Welfo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as "the company") B.P.Road, Amtala South, District- 24 Pargana, Calcutta , approached and called him through co-accused Kamaldeo Sinha in Hotel Apsara at Patna in the year 2004 for appointing him as an agent of the company for the State of Bihar. The accused persons at that time were staying in Hotel Apsara. When the complainant went to meet them, they told him that in order to start a business with the company he will have to deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (two lakhs) as security money which would be refundable on termination of the contract. They further told that apart from the security money he will have to arrange working capital for transacting business with the company. Believing upon their words the complainant deposited Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of cash and demand draft. However, after taking money from the complainant the business could not run smoothly. When the complainant raised grievance and demanded his security money back the accused persons persuaded him to continue with the business. They also got an agreement prepared between the parties. In such way the matter lingered for long. Again when the complainant demanded his security money back the accused persons in conspiracy to each other invited him in Hotel Welcome Palace at Patna where petitioner nos.1, 2 and another co-accused were found present together with some other unknown persons. They again persuaded him not to be impatient and assured that his security money would be refunded. They took his signature on blank papers and after negotiating with him they went away. However, inspite of lapse of some time when the accused persons did not approach the complainant, he contacted them on telephone and enquired about the refund of his security money. He was shocked to hear the reply given by petitioner no.1 who told him that the company in question would not transact its business in future with him and there is no money due with the company to be paid to the complainant. The complainant personally met the accused persons and demanded his money back but the accused persons refused to refund the money and said that there was nothing due to be paid to the complainant. It has also been alleged that when the complainant made an in depth enquiry, on 10.4.2006 he came to know that the accused persons after obtaining his signature on blank papers prepared forged documents in order to deny the refund of security money in question. Based on the aforesaid allegations the complainant instituted the complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna on 12.4.2006 making the petitioners and one another accused for committing offence under various sections of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The complainant was, thereafter, examined on solemn affirmation on 21.4.2006. In his statement on oath he has stated that the accused persons claimed themselves to be officers of the company. They assured him that if he works as an agent of the company he would make good profit. They also told him to deposit Rs.2,00,000/- in the account of the company as security money which they promised would be returned after termination of the contract. He deposited rupees 1,40,000/- by way of draft and Rs.60,000/- in cash. The business could not run smoothly. He demanded his security money back. The security money deposited by him was not refunded. The complainant stated that the accused persons cheated him in conspiracy to each other. In reply to court?s questions he submitted that there was no written agreement between the parties.