INDRAJIT BANERJEE Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding as well as FIR of Doranda P.S case no.208 of 2010 registered under Sections 406, 409, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that the parties have settled their dispute which are personal in nature. The case of the informant as it appears from the FIR is that in January, 2005 when the informant was selected as one of the players of the Indian Team for one day matches, the accused no.1 (petitioner no.2) approached him and represented that he as well as his Company does have sufficient expertise to have commercial contract for the person of repute and induced the informant to go for commercial contracts with various Companies for endorsing and marketing their products. On such inducement, the informant entered into an agreement on 18.1.2005 for three years with the company known as Gameplan Sports Pvt. Ltd. and thereby it was appointed as the informant's sole Managercum -Agent for the purpose of looking after his interest in relation to the promotional activities and to negotiate and sign the agreement with third parties who would be desirous for utilizing the name and fame of the informant. By the said agreement, the said Company was authorized to receive payments from the companies/advertisers for whom the informant would be undertaking advertising campaign or promotional activities. During subsistence of the contract, the informant took advertising campaigns/promotional activities for several Companies but the accused person in spite of receiving money worth Rs.8,44,20,169/ - from various Companies did not account for in the account of the informant, as had been agreed upon.

(2.) It has been further alleged that after 31.1.2008 when the agreement got lapsed the accused company acting as an Agent on behalf of the informant on freelance basis also did not account for sum of Rs.2.02,50,000/ - which the Company had collected it from different Companies and thereby the accused persons put the informant to wrongful loss to the extent of Rs.10,46,70,169/ - which the accused got it misappropriated.

(3.) IT was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that after the case was lodged, the parties got their dispute settled amicably and came to an agreement which was reduced in writing and was filed before the Kolkata High Court in C.S.No.100 of 2010 and C.S.No.240 of 2010.