Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 182 (CAL)

Manoranjan Das v. State of West Bengal

2014-03-05

ASHIM KUMAR ROY

body2014
JUDGMENT : Ashim Kumar Roy, J. The petitioner has been charge sheeted under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Siliguri Police Station Case No. 135 of 2008 now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, 1st Court, Siliguri. 2. It needs no mention that a chargesheet, before the commencement of the trial can only be quashed when it is found that on the allegation made in the First Information Report and the evidentiary materials collected in support of the same, no case is made out against the accused persons on the face of the same and without controverting the correctness of the materials. 3. The petitioner is an area manager of L.I.C. It is the case of the de facto complainant that he entered into an agreement for sale with the promoter, the accused Arup Nandi and booked a particular flat but after the construction was complete, the accused/promoter sold out the said flat to a third party. It is his further case that for purchase of the said flat the petitioner entered into a loan agreement with L.I.C. Housing Finance Limited when a sum of Rs. 4.80 lakhs was sanctioned but without any intimation to him, a sum of Rs. 3.25 lakhs was paid to the promoter and the promoter took the cheque from the present petitioner. 4. Now it is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner on the face of the allegations made in the FIR and the materials collected in support of the same, it cannot be said that petitioner is, prima facie, guilty of an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted there is no allegations what role petitioner has played in the commission of the offence, except that he handed over the cheque to the promoter and in fact, pursuant to the terms of agreement and in discharge of his official duty after sanction of the loan amount the cheque was issued. The learned counsel for the petitioner further draws my attention to the order passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Siliguri where both the accused/promoter and the petitioner was impleaded as defendant and submitted that it would be evident from the said order that the promoter Arup Nandi was found liable and he was directed to execute the sale deed upon payment of balance amount of Rs. 1.60 lakhs to him by the de facto complainant and otherwise to return the amount to the complainant with interest and with intimation to the L.I.C. Housing Finance Limited and in the said proceeding nothing adverse was found against the petitioner. It is further contended according to the de facto complainant the petitioner was pressurising him for repayment of the loan but asking for repayment of loan, on behalf of this company, petitioner cannot be held liable for committing any wrong far less any criminal offence. 5. The learned advocate for the State produced the Case Diary and submitted beside the facts that the de facto complainant obtained a loan from L.I.C. and at that material time, the petitioner was area manager of L.I.C., no material was collected during investigation against him. 6. In terms of the order passed by this court the copy of the application sent to the de facto complainant but the same has returned unserved with the postal endorsement addressee left the place without any intimation. Affidavit of service filed in court be taken on record. 7. I have very carefully gone through the case diary and going through the charge sheeted materials, I find what have been submitted by the learned advocate for the State is correct. The only materials against the petitioner is this at the material time when loan was sanctioned and cheque was issued by the L.I.C., he was the area manager and who disbursed the loan amount, although it is claimed that petitioner was not the area manager of the LIC Housing Finance Limited when the loan was sanctioned and cheque was issued. I further find during the investigation of this case some senior LIC officers were examined by the police, who were Deputy General Manager and Assistant General Manager. According to them after documentation and necessary agreement a sum of Rs. 4.56 lakhs was sanctioned in favour of the de facto complainant by the LIC Housing Finance Limited for financing him to purchase a flat. The loan amount was disbursed in terms of the said agreement and a few instalments were also paid by the de facto complainant. According to them after documentation and necessary agreement a sum of Rs. 4.56 lakhs was sanctioned in favour of the de facto complainant by the LIC Housing Finance Limited for financing him to purchase a flat. The loan amount was disbursed in terms of the said agreement and a few instalments were also paid by the de facto complainant. However, after some time he stopped payment of instalments amount on the plea that the possession of the flat was not given to him and when they contacted the promoter they were informed since full payment was not made, the flat could not be handed over to the de facto complainant and if full payment is made promoter is ready to give the possession and thereafter, on behalf of the LIC attempt was made to get back the loan amount which was the public property. So far as the petitioner is concerned, I do not find any material against him so as to charge sheet him under section 420 IPC. So far as the petitioner is concerned, I am of the opinion this is a fit case for quashing. 8. Accordingly, this application is allowed and charge sheet so far petitioner is concerned stand quashed. 9. Criminal Section is directed to deliver urgent photostat certified copy of this order to the learned advocate of the petitioner, if applied for, as early as possible.