Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 887 (CAL)

Parvez Alam v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2009-12-07

PARTHA SAKHA DATTA

body2009
Judgment :- (1.) By this application prayer is made for quashing of a proceeding being GR. Case No. 813 of 2002 under Sections 384/420/403/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code arising out of Kharagpur (Local) P.S. Case No. 127 of 2002 that resulted in submission of charge-sheet by the I.O. of the case under the aforesaid sections of the law. Also is challenged the order dated 16th January, 2003 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Midnapore (Sadar) taking cognizance of offence upon submission of charge-sheet and issuing process upon the present petitioners who are two of the accused persons in the said criminal case. (2.) One Bimal Kumar Sodhani filed on 11th June, a petition under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. before the learned SDJM, Midnapore (Sadar) (now the Chief Judicial Magistrate) alleging the following facts. (3.) Accused No.1 Anil Rao was the Managing Director of Associates Infrastructure (I) Pvt. Ltd. and accused No. 3 was the site-in-charge of the said company. They are not the petitioners herein. Accused No. 2 Parvez Alam and accused No. 4 Dilbagh Singh were the Project Manager and the site-in-charge respectively of Hindustan Construction Company. The accused Nos. 2 and 4 are the petitioners in this application as petitioners Nos.1 and 2 respectively. The firm of the accused Nos. 2 and 4, namely, Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. was authorised to perform road construction work for a distance of 10 K.M. on NH-6 and the said firm of accused Nos.2 and 4 approached the accused No.1, the Managing Director of Associates Infrastructure to do the job within a specified period but as the Associates Infrastructure was not in a position to perform the job they entrusted the complainant to do the job for the said accused Nos.1 and 3. A meeting took place at Hotel Kaushik at Roopnarayanpur on 10th November, 2001 between the complainant and the accused No.1 in presence of the other accused persons and witnesses. As per discussion held in the meeting it was agreed by and between the complainant and the accused persons 1 and 3 that the complainant would do the job of emergency nature and would be paid 90 per cent of the total amount for the aforesaid entire work. As per discussion held in the meeting it was agreed by and between the complainant and the accused persons 1 and 3 that the complainant would do the job of emergency nature and would be paid 90 per cent of the total amount for the aforesaid entire work. The complainant started doing the construction work from 12th November, 2001 for which he had to hire various valuable machines, tools, parameters and other allied articles by incurring expenditure of lots of money. It was settled that the accused No.1 would pay the amount to the complainant part by part preferably every fortnight in each month. After expiry of one month from 12th November, 2001 when the complainant asked the accused No.1 for payment of money he replied that he had not received bill and requested the complainant to proceed with the work which he did. The work was completed. The complainant visited the office of the accused No.1 on several occasions and asked the accused No.1 for payment but at all time he was told that the accused No.1 did not receive the bill for the work. It is the allegations of the complainant that on most of the occasions it has been noticed that the other accused persons sitting in the office of the accused No.1 made conspiracy against the complainant. During performance of the work on several occasions not only the authorised persons but also the accused persons had taken measurement of work and they were satisfied of the job. Complainant came to know that the accused No.1 after making conspiracy with other accused persons including the present two petitioners in order to cheat the complainant withdrew all relevant bills upto date but did not make payment to the complainant and dishonestly mis-appropriated the amount and converted the same to their own use in violation of the trust. It is alleged that the accused persons pursuant to criminal conspiracy since inception of the work deceived the complainant fraudulently and dishonestly by inducing him to perform the construction work and being so induced the complainant performed the work in good faith and honest belief and thereby has been cheated. The accused No.1 asked the complainant to meet him in his office on 10th June, 2002 for the purpose of payment. The accused No.1 asked the complainant to meet him in his office on 10th June, 2002 for the purpose of payment. When the complainant came to the office he found accused No.3 along with some unknown persons and as soon as he enquired of the accused No.1 the other accused persons used filthy languages and obtained by force and threat of injury his signature on some blank papers. Thus, it is alleged that the accused persons committed offences under Sections 420/403/406/384/120B of the Indian Penal Code. (4.) The Learned Magistrate referred the petition to the police for investigation and accordingly a case under the aforesaid sections of the law was registered at Kharagpur (Local) PS. being Case No. 127 of 2002 dated 12th June, 2002. Upon completion of investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against all the accused persons under the aforesaid sections of the law on 16.1.2003 and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence by the order of the said date. (5.) It is the contention of the two petitioners who are the officials of Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. that they were not privies to the contract between Associates Infrastructure (I) Pvt. Ltd. and the complainant; the Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. was not required to make any payment direct to the complaint. If Associates Infrastructure India Ltd. with whom order was placed for construction of road for a distance of 10 kms on Nh-6 was unable to do the job and if they delegated the job to the complainant then it is a matter between the complainant and the said Associates Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd.; but in noway the two accused persons who are the officials of Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. can be fastened with criminal liability of alleged misappropriation or of cheating or of extortion on account of non-payment of the money allegedly due in favour of the complainant against the accused Nos. 1 and 3. This is the first branch of argument of Mr. Sekhar Basu learned Counsel for the petitioners. (6.) It has been submitted that in order to make the offence of cheating applicable to the petitioners it must be shown that these two petitioners. had at the inception of the transaction intended to cheat the complainant. 1 and 3. This is the first branch of argument of Mr. Sekhar Basu learned Counsel for the petitioners. (6.) It has been submitted that in order to make the offence of cheating applicable to the petitioners it must be shown that these two petitioners. had at the inception of the transaction intended to cheat the complainant. Since alleged agreement was between complainant and the Associates Infrastructure India Ltd. it cannot be said that accused No. 2 and 4 who were the officials of Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. made any promise for payment of the money on account of the work proposed to be done by the complainant on behalf of the company represented by the accused No.1. It is not the allegation in the complaint that it was the accused Nos.2 and 4 who made representations to the complainant or allured him to believe that payment would be made by the Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. to the complainant. There was n6 representation on behalf of the accused Nos. 2-4 and mere presence of the accused No. 2 to 4 in the alleged first meeting on 10th November, 2001 at "Kaushik" hotel at Roopnarayanpur when there was an agreement between the complainant and the Associates Infrastructure Ltd. does not indicate that accused No.2 to 4 intended that the said company would cheat the complainant or that the Hindustan Construction Ltd. represented by the accused Nos.2-4 (petitioners) hatched up conspiracy with the accused No. 1. Since there was no talk or agreement at all between the accused Nos.2 and 4 and the complainant regarding payment of money or for construction of work the offence of cheating cannot be leveled against the accused Nos. 2-4. (7.) It has been contended further by Mr. Sekhar Basu that there is a reference in the FIR that the complainant noticed the presence of all the accused persons in the office of the accused No.1 but mere presence of the accused persons in the office of the accused No.1 does not mean that they were holding meeting to hatch conspiracy. It is further submitted that if the incident alleged in Paragraph-15 of the petition of complaint is examined at least prima facie it would appear that concerning such incident which allegedly took place on 10th June, 2002 in the office of the accused No.1 there was no presence of the accused Nos. It is further submitted that if the incident alleged in Paragraph-15 of the petition of complaint is examined at least prima facie it would appear that concerning such incident which allegedly took place on 10th June, 2002 in the office of the accused No.1 there was no presence of the accused Nos. 2-4 because it has been alleged that on that day when the complainant had gone to the office of the accused No. 1 he found the accused No.3 with some unknown persons and as soon as, he enquired of the accused No.1 the other persons used filthy languages to him and intentionally put him in fear of injury and compelled and forced him to sign on some blank papers. This averment in the Paragraph-15 of the FIR does not at all indicate even by implication that on that date the accused Nos. 2 to 4 were present in the office of the accused No.1. Therefore, it is submitted that it can hardly be said that the accused Nos.2-4 who represented Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. hatched up conspiracy with the accused No.1 so as to cheat the complainant. (8.) It is submitted that the charge-sheet submitted in connection with the case does not make out any prima facie case under Sections 384/ 420/403/406/120B of the IPC so far as the present two petitioners are concerned. (9.) Mr. Basu referred to decisions in Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P. and Ors., 2003(3) SCC 3, Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Surendra Prasad Sinha, AIR 1992 SC 1815 , M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors., 1998 Cri.LJ 1, JTH Zward and Ors. v. Indrani Mukherjee, 1990 C. Cr.LR(Cal)1, U.Dhar and Anr. v. State of Jherkhand and Anr., 2003(2) SCC 219 , Alpic Finance Ltd. v. P. Sadasivan and Anr., JT 2001(2) SC 588,Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat and Anr., 2008(2) SCC(Cri) 692 and Bata India Ltd. and Ors. v. The State of West Bengal and Ors., 2007(2) C Cr LR (Cal) 717. (10.) Mr. S. Moitra, learned Advocate appearing for the de facto complainant submitted that absence of privity of contract between Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. and the complainant does not negate the case of cheating or criminal breach of trust or extortion. Mr. v. The State of West Bengal and Ors., 2007(2) C Cr LR (Cal) 717. (10.) Mr. S. Moitra, learned Advocate appearing for the de facto complainant submitted that absence of privity of contract between Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. and the complainant does not negate the case of cheating or criminal breach of trust or extortion. Mr. Moitra submitted that the Court must not forget that it is a case where charge sheet has been submitted against all the accused persons. It is not a case where prayer has been made for quashing of the FIR or petition of complaint. The law is very well settled that when upon laborious investigation the police have...submitted charge-sheet against all the accused persons the Court must be exercising its inherent jurisdiction very sparingly and it is only in rarest of rare cases where no case is made out that the Court can quash a charge-sheet. It is submitted that had it been a case that the Associates Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. did not receive any payment from the Hindustan Co. Ltd. for which payment to the complainant could not be made it would have been a different position. The position would have been different also if the accused No.1 would made some correspondences at least to show that its conduct was above reproach. Evidence indicates that the total payments were received by Associates Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. represented by the accused No.1 and in spite of receipt of payment from the Hindustan Co. Ltd. the accused No.1 withheld payment and pursuant to criminal conspiracy with the accused Nos.2 and 4 (present petitioners) they all shared the money amongst themselves which is clearly indicative of criminal conspiracy to cheat at the inception of the transaction. It has been submitted that when cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate it would not be justifiable by this Court to meticulously consider the materials which the learned Magistrate can alone do, and definitely will do when he will proceed with the hearing of the consideration of charge. In the petition of complaint it has been clearly stated that all the accused persons belonged to one, group, meaning thereby that denial of payment by the accused No.1 to the complainant was pursuant to a conspiracy hatched by all the accused persons and that is manifest in Paragraphs-1 and 5 of the FIR. In the petition of complaint it has been clearly stated that all the accused persons belonged to one, group, meaning thereby that denial of payment by the accused No.1 to the complainant was pursuant to a conspiracy hatched by all the accused persons and that is manifest in Paragraphs-1 and 5 of the FIR. In Paragraph-5 it has been alleged that a conversation took at hotel Kaushik at Roopnarayanpur on 10th November, 2001 between the complainant and the accused No.1 in the presence of the other accused persons and the witnesses and in Paragraph-1 of the FIR itself has said that the accused persons belong to one group. It is argued that the conspiracy is not a tangible object to be seen , it is to be proved by conduct and circumstances and if the statements of the witnesses are gone into it would reveal that conspiracy, extortion, cheating and criminal breach of trust were committed not by the accused Nos.1 and 3 alone but also by the accused No.2 and 4. All the accused persons shared the money amongst themselves which signify presence of the element of cheating. Sufficiency of evidence is a matter of trial which must not be looked into by this Court at this stage and in the hotel all the accused persons were present. Mr. Moitra referred to the decision in Mr. Krishnan, reported in 2001 (4) AICLR 333 where the Honble Supreme Court held that whether factual finding has been present High Court should not quash on the ground that one or other ingredient of the offences is absent. With reference to the submission of Mr. Basu that the complainant has instituted a money suit being Money Suit No. 58 of 2002 against the Associates Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. and Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. for realisation of the money it is submitted that mere pendency of a civil suit will not be a determining factor to hold that the criminal proceedings should be quashed inasmuch as it is the settled law that in every criminal case of cheating or criminal breach of trust involving transactions between the two companies there might be a civil profile but presence of civil element cannot negate continuance of a criminal proceeding if the materials disclose that offence of criminal breach of trust or of approach has been made out. Mr. Mr. Moitra referred to the decision in S. M. Datta v. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 2001 SC 3253 where it has been held that genuineness of FIR may not be gone into, and mathematical accuracy is not desired in the FIR and what is desired is broad disclosure of the case. Mr. Moitra referred to a decision in 1999 SCC (Cri) 401 in support of the submission, that in the complaint or FIR it is not necessary that all the ingredients that constitute a offence must be told. Mr. Moitra further argued that in the plaint of the money suit nobody can demand of mention of element of cheating in the plaint which has to be stated in the petition of complaint or the FIR. Mr. Moitra referred to the decision in Hardeo Singh v. State of Bihar and Anr., reported in 2000 SC (Cri) 1008 and the decisions in 1980 SCC (Cri) 493. In the later decision it has been held that a conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy which is to be proved only from inferences and circumstances. It is argued with reference to a decision in AIR 1957 SC 340 that when offence of cheating is proved that would be clear indicative of proof of offence of conspiracy. (11.) With respect to the submission of Mr. Basu that accused Nos. 2 and 4 who are the petitioners herein cannot be made vicariously liable with Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. and that the accused Nos.2 and 4 have been mentioned as representatives of Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. it has been argued by Mr. Moitra that accused Nos. 2 and 4 who are the petitioners have never been arraigned as representatives of the company. No vicarious liability has been pleaded against the company or against the accused Nos. 2 and 4 (the present petitioners). They have been made personally liable and in order to show who they are it has been mentioned in the FIR that one was the Project Manager of Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. and the other was site-in-charge of Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. (12.) Having heard the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties I proceed to examine whether within the parameter State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, 1992 Cri.LJ 527 (SC) the two petitioners can rightfully claim an order of quashing of the proceeding as against them. Ltd. and the other was site-in-charge of Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. (12.) Having heard the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties I proceed to examine whether within the parameter State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, 1992 Cri.LJ 527 (SC) the two petitioners can rightfully claim an order of quashing of the proceeding as against them. I am not unmindful that this is a case where quashing of a charge-sheet is prayed for, not a petition of complaint or FIR simpliciter. To begin with the FIR, there is an averment at Paragraph-5 that in the course of conversation between the accused No.1 and the complainant at hotel Kaushik at Roopnarayanpur on 10th November, 2001 other accused persons and witnesses were present. This averment by itself cannot be extended to mean that prior to the meeting the accused Nos. 1 and 3 on the one hand and accused Nos. 2 and 4 on the other had already conspired that by entrustment of the work to the complainant by the accused No.1 the money that would be paid to the accused No.1 by Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. would be shared by all the four accused persons without payment to the complainant. This would be a far fetched reasoning impossible to arrive at. Secondly, it could not be the case of the complainant that there had at all been any agreement or contract between the complainant and the Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. The job was not entrusted to the complainant by the Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. Evidently there was no scope on the part of the accused Nos.2 and 4 to make any representation, fraudulent or otherwise, that payment would be made to the complainant by the accused Nos. 2 and 4. It is also not the case in the FIR that accused Nos. 2 and 4 or for that matter the Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. made any representation to the complainant on behalf of the Associated Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. that payment would be made by them. At no point of time there was any correspondences between the complainant and the accused Nos. 2 and 4 or between the complainant and the Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. made any representation to the complainant on behalf of the Associated Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. that payment would be made by them. At no point of time there was any correspondences between the complainant and the accused Nos. 2 and 4 or between the complainant and the Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. It is known as a settled legal principle that in order to substantiate a charge of cheating it must be established that dishonest intention must be present at the very inception of the transaction so that a breach of promise can be distinguished from an offence of cheating. Reading between the lines of the FIR it does not transpire that so far as the accused Nos. 2 and 4 is concerned, they at all made any representation to the complainant. That is not the case in the FIR itself, Mere presence of the accused Nos. 2 and 4 as alleged in Paragraph-15 of the FIR On 10.11.2001 in hotel Kaushik at Roopnarayanpur where an agreement was drawn up between the complainant and the accused No. 1 will not be a prima facie element of cheating as against the accused Nos.2 and 4, the petitioners herein. So far as the allegation in Paragraph-15 is concerned, it does not appear that concerning the incident that allegedly took place on 10th June, 2002 in the office of the accused No. 1 the two petitioners at all were present because their presence has not been alleged on that day in the office of the accused No.1. It is not the allegation in the FIR that it is these two petitioners who by putting the complainant in fear of injury obtained his signature on blank sheets of papers. So far as the two petitioners are concerned, the ingredients of criminal breach of trust is distinctly absent. Now let us look at the materials collected by the I.O. in course of investigation of the case. I.O. has recorded the statements of certain witnesses. The caretaker of the hotel is one Nandalal Kaushik. He Says that the complainant came to his hotel where at the mediation of the two petitioners there was an oral agreement between the complainant and Anil Rao, representative of the Associates Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. and he was present in the meeting. I.O. has recorded the statements of certain witnesses. The caretaker of the hotel is one Nandalal Kaushik. He Says that the complainant came to his hotel where at the mediation of the two petitioners there was an oral agreement between the complainant and Anil Rao, representative of the Associates Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. and he was present in the meeting. Pursuant to the agreement the complainant started doing the job but then there developed a trouble between the accused No.1 and the complainant and a meeting took place in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kharagpur where one MLA was also present and in that meeting accused No 1 admitted the work done by the complainant but the accused No. 1 did not make payment pursuant to conspiracy with the two petitioners and mis-appropriated about 60 lacs rupees of the complainant. It is the statement of Anil Kumar Kaushik the hotel manager, that he came to know that by conspiracy with the petitioners the accused No.1 misappropriated the money. One Mrinalendu Sarkar, an owner of a petrol pump on the highway at NH-6 stated before the I.O. that sometime after the construction work had commenced trouble developed between the complainant and Anil Rao, as a result of which the complainant stopped the work and then it could be known that by cooperation of Dilbagh Singh and Parvez Alam, Anil Rao (accused No.1) misappropriated the money. Raj Kishore Singh speaks of the incident of 10th June, 2002 saying that he accompanied the complainant on that day to the office of the accused No.1 where at about 11 a.m. there were one Bhowmick Babu and 3/4 others who picked up quarrel with the complainant and they obtained by force signature of complainant on some blank stamped papers. This witness does not say that Parvez Alam and Dilbagh Singh were present on that day in the office of the accused No.1 at Nimpura. One Pankaj Kr. Singh also speaks of the incident that took place at 11 a.m. in the office of the accused No.1 but his statement also does not show that on that day accused Nos.2 and 4 were present. One. One Pankaj Kr. Singh also speaks of the incident that took place at 11 a.m. in the office of the accused No.1 but his statement also does not show that on that day accused Nos.2 and 4 were present. One. Nirmalendu Sarkar brother of Mrinalendu Sarkar the owner of the petrol pump made a statement to the effect that Anil Rao (accused No.1) withheld payment from being made to the complainant, as a result of which the complainant was unable to make payment of balance amount to him. Anil. Rao was not a good man. In the last line of his statement it has been alleged that Anil Rao withheld payment due to Bimal Babu (complainant) by conspiracy with Parvez Alam and Dilbagh Singh. One Murshed Ali was the labour contractor on behalf of the complainant. A dispute developed between Anil Rao and the complainant, as a result of which the complainant stopped the construction work Anil Rao withheld payment from being made to the complainant. This witness does not speak of any involvement of the two petitioners in the matter of non-payment of money by the accused No. 1 to the complainant. Similarly, the statement of Sambhu Sil also does not at all mention the two petitioners in non-payment of money by the accused No. 1 to the complainant. One Durga Pada Dey, an employee of the complainant said that because of Anil Babu not making payment to the complainant payment due to him against the complainant could not be made. One Madhav Chandra Das is an employee of the complainant as supervisor against the monthly salary of Rs. 3,000/- he says that there had been a trouble between the complainant and Associates Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. He then refers to the incident of 10th June, 2002. His statement completely absolves the two petitioners. (13.) Thus, altogether there are 10 witnesses to the prosecution case. Of them two witnesses are police officers who the I.Os of the case. Of the 8 witnesses conspiracy between the accused Nos.1 and 3 on the one hand and accused Nos.2 and 4 on the other has been alleged by Nandalal Kaushik, Anil Kr. Kaushik, Mrinalendu Sarkar and Nirmalendu Sarkar. There was no further statement recorded by the I.O. of the complainant. The complainant has to translate into evidence his case in the FIR which we have examined prima facie. Kaushik, Mrinalendu Sarkar and Nirmalendu Sarkar. There was no further statement recorded by the I.O. of the complainant. The complainant has to translate into evidence his case in the FIR which we have examined prima facie. Anil Kaushik and Mrinalendu Sarkar have clearly stated that they came to know that the two petitioners had assisted the accused No.1 in the matter of withholding of payment. How they came to know has not been mentioned by them. These are purely hearsay statements. The other statements referable to the petitioners are of Nandalal Kaushik and Nirmalendu Sarkar. These two witnesses ........Nandalal is the brother of Anil while Mrinalendu is the brother of Nirmalendu ... .did not speak of their direct knowledge about conspiracy. Statement of these two witnesses that Anil Rao conspired with the two petitioners is the sole material which cannot be legally taken into consideration. Besides this, there is in fact no oral evidence prima facie revealing conspiracy between the accused No.1 and accused Nos.2 and 4. It is not the claim of the witnesses that the two petitioners misappropriated money or accused No.1 shared the money with the two petitioners after receiving payment from Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. In Paragraph-10 of the FIR it has been alleged that on occasions the complainant noticed sitting of accused No. 1 with the other accused persons and this sitting together would be an indication of conspiracy. This interpretation as suggested by Mr. Moitra is hardly acceptable. Mere sitting of some persons together without anything more does not bring about even a prima facie element of conspiracy. As said above, the FIR does not at all reveal any cognizable offence against the two petitioners. The statements of the witnesses barring two are not helpful to the complainant Only two persons who speak of conspiracy does not say the foundation of their claim. Even the statements of the two witnesses, namely, Nandalal Kaushik and Nirmalendu Sarkar did not show that at the inception of the transaction there was any deceptive mind in the petitioners. In this circumstances, the decisions cited by Mr. Moitra did not help him. Mr. Even the statements of the two witnesses, namely, Nandalal Kaushik and Nirmalendu Sarkar did not show that at the inception of the transaction there was any deceptive mind in the petitioners. In this circumstances, the decisions cited by Mr. Moitra did not help him. Mr. Basu referred to certain documents which I am unable to take into consideration because it is not known whether those documents were seized by the I.O. in connection with the investigation of the case and the prosecution intends to rely on those documents I can only refer to certain documents which the I.O. seized in connection with the investigation of the case. It is not in dispute that in the memorandum of understanding which was drawn up between the complainant and the accused No.1 the two petitioners were witnesses; their standing as a witnesses was only normal. The I.O. seized the letter dated 25.3. 2002 addressed by the. complainant to the accused No.1 regarding handing over of draft agreement, another letter dated 27.4.2002 concerning R.A. bill No. 5 upto March, 2002 and supplementary bill. These documents did not relate to the two petitioners. It is true that conspiracy has to be proved by conduct and surrounding circumstances. The statements of the witnesses recorded by the I.O. and the FIR of the de facto complainant clearly speaking prima facie failed to point out any conduct or circumstances that can reasonably lead one to believe the existence of conspiracy. Conspiracy must be founded on some facts which are not found from the FIR or from the statements of the witnesses and the documents seized by the I.O. I.O. also seized certain correspondences between the complainant and the accused No.1 but the petitioners are not parties to those correspondences. (14.) Mr. Moitra referred to the following decisions in Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, 1980 SCC (Cri) 493, Mohammad Usman Mohmmad Hussain Maniyar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, 1981 SCC (Cri) 477, Manohar Nath Kaul v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 1983 SCC (Cri) 647, Radhey Shyam Khemka and Anr. v. State of Bihar, 1993 (3) SCC 54 , Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi and Ors., 1999 SCC (Cri) 401, Medchl Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, 1981 SCC (Cri) 477, Manohar Nath Kaul v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 1983 SCC (Cri) 647, Radhey Shyam Khemka and Anr. v. State of Bihar, 1993 (3) SCC 54 , Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi and Ors., 1999 SCC (Cri) 401, Medchl Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. and Ors. , 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, State of Kerala v. P.Sugathan and Anr., 2000 SCC (Cri) 1474, Hardeo Singh v. State of Bihar and Anr., 2000 SCC (Cri) 1008, M. Krishnan v. Vijoy Singh andAnr., 2001(4) AIRLR 333, S. M. Datta v. State of Gujarat and Anr., 2001 SC 3253 and Raj Lakshmi Mills v. Shakti Bhakoo, 2002(8) SCC 236 . (15.) These decisions are all facts oriented. But keeping in mind the principles laid down in the decisions it cannot be held that a prima facie case has been disclosed of conspiracy between the petitioners and the accused Nos.1 and 3. (16.) Accordingly, the application succeeds and is allowed. The criminal proceeding being G. R. Case No. 813 of 2002 arising but of Kharagpur (local) P. S, Case No. 127 of 2002 under Sections 384/420/406/120B of the I.P.C., so far as the two petitioners are concerned is quashed. The two petitioners shall be deemed to be discharged from bail bonds, if they are on bail. Urgent xerox certified copy, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.