Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 347 (CAL)

Mustak Hossain v. State of West Bengal

2015-04-17

SHIB SADHAN SADHU

body2015
JUDGMENT : Shib Sadhan Sadhu, J. 1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking for quashing the impugned proceedings of Case No.C-8738 of 2007 pending before the 8th Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24-Parganas. 2. Challenge in this revision by the petitioner is to his summoning order dated 17.12.2007 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 8th Court, Alipore, South 24-Parganas in complaint Case in C-8738 of 2007 under Sections 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code and the entire proceedings of the aforesaid trial. 3. A brief resume of the unfolded background facts indicate that complainant Dr. Akbar Ali Khan was an IPS Officer and held an important and respectable position in the society being posted as DIG of Police, Home Guards, West Bengal. He hails from a village of District Gazipur in the State of Uttar Pradesh and he is highly respected, trusted and honoured by the people of that area as he is the only IPS Officer from that area. Out of such trust, the local people of that area had entrusted a total sum of Rs. 1,03,00,000/- in cash to his wife namely Mrs. T.P.Khan for purchasing land near the New Satellite Township at Rajarhat, Kolkata. 4. Coming to know from reliable sources that the accused No.1 Abdur Rahim Gazi was a land broker, the complainant (O.P.No.2 herein) and his wife contacted with the accused No.1 for purchase of land in Mouza Hathisala. As he was an extremely busy person and his wife was a 'Pardanasheen lady' they entrusted the accused No.1 for purchasing the land and registration thereof and as per his demand the wife of the O.P. No.2 paid a total sum of Rs. 1,02,50,000/- and the O.P.No.2 noted such payment in his own handwriting and signature in a diary brought and maintained by the accused No.1 (since deceased). 5. The accused No.2 Mustak Hossain (petitioner herein) was a family friend of the O.P.No.2 and his wife and in course of visits he came to know from the O.P.No.2 and his wife about the proposed purchase of land through the accused No.1 in Hathihsala Mouza at a very cheap rate. He also acquired full knowledge about all payments of money by them to the accused No.1 and requested them to buy lands for his companies and gave names and addresses of his companies. He also acquired full knowledge about all payments of money by them to the accused No.1 and requested them to buy lands for his companies and gave names and addresses of his companies. However, there was no agreement about the price of the land. The petitioner was hard bargaining about the price and kept prolonging decisions about the payments of money. However, the O.P. No.2 understood that while the petitioner was ostensibly negotiating with the O.P.No.2 and his wife he was already fraudulently getting land purchased/registered in the names of his three companies by utilising the money advanced in trust and good faith by the O.P. No.2 and his wife to the accused No.1. Hence, no money was either given by the petitioner nor any money was accepted ever by the O.P. No.2 and his wife. 6. Thereafter the accused persons in criminal conspiracy with each other dishonestly caused purchase of land measuring 2526.26 sataks in Hathisala Mouza in the names of the companies being accused Nos.6, 7 & 8 from the money entrusted to the accused No.1 by the wife of O.P.No.2 and thereafter got the said land registered in the name of the accused Nos.6 to 8 companies. 7. The complainant (O.P.No.2) received a charge-sheet dated 29th March, 2006 from Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Government of West Bengal, containing an allegation of receiving an amount of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- from the petitioner on different dates between February, 2004 and August, 2004 in order to purchase land at Rajarhat Area through the accused No.1 in the names of accused companies and made payment of Rs. 1,02,50,000/- only to the accused No.1 for such purchase and mis-appropriated the balance of Rs. 57,50,000/- only. The O.P. No.2 had gained his knowledge from the various correspondences made by the accused persons with the Vigilance Commissioner and also from the statements of the witnesses examined in the departmental proceeding against the O.P. No.2. 8. With the aforesaid allegations complaint was filed by the complainant (O.P. No.2 herein) in which the complainant was the sole witness (certified copy of the said petition of complaint is annexed and marked as P-1). 9. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24-Parganas registered the complaint as complaint Case No.C-8738 of 2007, took cognizance and thereafter, transferred the case to the Court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 8th Court, Alipore for enquiry and disposal. 9. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24-Parganas registered the complaint as complaint Case No.C-8738 of 2007, took cognizance and thereafter, transferred the case to the Court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 8th Court, Alipore for enquiry and disposal. The Learned Transferee Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. in which the complainant reiterated his allegations inked in his complaint. He also filed some documents. 10. The Learned Magistrate on the strength of such oral and documentary evidences opined that there were prima facie materials to issue process against accused person under Sections 406/420/120B of the IPC vide the impugned summoning order dated 17.12.2007 which is now the subject matter of the instant Revision. 11. I have heard Mr. Debasish Roy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner who made submissions in support of this revision. I have also heard Mr. Ayan Basu, Learned Counsel appearing for the State. I have also gone through the entire proceedings with meticulous care. In spite of service none appeared on behalf of the O.P. No.2. 12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the truth of the matter was that the company of the petitioner Mustak Hossain namely "Pataka Group of Companies" intended to increase its business by establishing a model residential school and "Pataka Food Park" in and around Kolkata Airport. In course of search for such land the company came in contact with a land broker named Abdur Rahim Gazi. Thereafter, the petitioner contacted the O.P.No.2 who was known to him and expressed his desire for purchasing 150 bighas of land in Hathisala Mouza, Rajarhat and the O.P.No.2 offered his help to act as an agent and to render all services to monitor/supervise purchase of land and also to undertake all monetary transaction including registration of the land. Subsequently from time to time a sum of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- by way of cash was entrusted to the O.P.No.2 in cash and 76 bighas of land was purchased between the period from February to August, 2004 by 110 registered sale deeds. The O.P. No.2 insisted upon the petitioner to form a partnership firm and asked him to dispose of the purchased land at a higher price and to invest the proceeds in land-trading business with O.P.No.2. The petitioner did not accept that proposal. So the O.P.No.2 deliberately withheld 72 original IGRs' out of 110 IGRs. The O.P. No.2 insisted upon the petitioner to form a partnership firm and asked him to dispose of the purchased land at a higher price and to invest the proceeds in land-trading business with O.P.No.2. The petitioner did not accept that proposal. So the O.P.No.2 deliberately withheld 72 original IGRs' out of 110 IGRs. In the month of September, 2004 Abdul Rahim Gazi disclosed to the petitioner that he had received a sum of Rs. 1,02,50,000/- from O.P.No.2 but he did not receive any amount as brokerage /remuneration. The petitioner demanded accounts from the O.P. No.2 but he avoided. So the petitioner was compelled to write a letter dated 03.03.2005 to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of West Bengal, who was in charge of the Home Ministry, intimating him about the illegal activities of O.P.No.2 (copy of letter dated 03.03.2005 has been annexed and marked P- 3). In pursuance of such letter a confidential enquiry was held and the allegations against the O.P.No.2 (complainant) was substantiated and initiation of criminal case was recommended against him for criminal breach of trust. The Vigilance Commission came to the finding that the complainant (O.P.No.2) while functioning as DIG, Home Guard, in course of his active involvement in the Real Estate business received Rs. 1,60,00,000/- from the present petitioner (accused No.2) on different dates between February, 2004 to August, 2004 in order to purchase land at Rajarhat through the accused No.1 Abdur Rahim Gazi, a land broker and paid Rs. 1,02,50,000/- to the said Abdur Rahim Gazi and amount of Rs. 57,50,000/- was mis-appropriated and such conduct shows lack of integrity which is improper and unbecoming of a public servant and as such is violative of Rule 3(1) of All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 (copy of such report has been annexed and marked as Ext.P-4). 13. It was further submitted by Mr.Roy that the O.P. No.2 realising that his misdeeds have come to light and his service prospect have come under a cloud, filed a suit being Title Suit No.994 of 2007 before the Court of Learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Alipore for declaration and injunction against the petitioner, Abdur Rahim Gazi and other Pataka Group of Industries (copy of that plaint and the orders are annexed and marked P-5). Thereafter, on 17.05.2006 Ganesh Chandra Sen authorised representative of Pataka Industries (Pvt.) Ltd, had filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta who directed the O.C., Park Street P.S. to investigate into the complaint and to submit report. However, the O.C., Park Street P.S. submitted a report stating that as the accused was an IPS Officer, the alleged offence should be investigated by an Assistant Commissioner of Police. Later on the Learned Magistrate dropped the proceeding (copy of that complaint and police report are annexed and marked P-6). Thereafter, the O.P. No.2 has filed the impugned complaint as a retaliatory measure on vague, improbable and false allegations. 14. Mr. Roy further submitted that none of the basic ingredients of the offences alleged under Sections 406/420/120B IPC has at all been satisfied. From the facts as disclosed in the petition of complaint alleged entrustment of money if at all, was made to the accused No.1 by the complainant/O.P.No.2 and that the said sum of money was mis-appropriated by the accused No.1. Similarly, from the averments of the complaint and the initial statement of the O.P. No.2 it is apparent that the accused No.1 made representation before the O.P.No.2 and his wife and they have been induced by that false and fraudulent representation of accused No.1 and they handed over the said sum of Rs. 1,02,50,000/-. There is no allegation against the present petitioner about any interaction with the O.P. No.2 prior to handing over such sum of money by him to the accused No.1. Therefore, it is apparent that the money was not mis-appropriated or the commission of offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust was not resultant of any conspiracy hatched between the accused Nos.1 & 2 but a subsequent act. In such circumstances the charge under Sections 406/420/120B IPC is clearly not maintainable. 15. It was further submitted by the Learned Counsel that since summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter, the Learned Magistrate while summoning the accused must apply his mind to the facts of the case so as to satisfy himself regarding applicability of law to such facts. 15. It was further submitted by the Learned Counsel that since summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter, the Learned Magistrate while summoning the accused must apply his mind to the facts of the case so as to satisfy himself regarding applicability of law to such facts. He is under a legal obligation to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence produced in support thereof and to determine the sufficiency of the charge being brought home in the ultimate run. In the instant case it is apparent that the allegations brought by the O.P. No.2 do not make out any offence as alleged and still the Learned Magistrate observed that a prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner under Sections 406/420/120B of the IPC which is absolutely perverse. He concludingly submitted that the present proceeding is nothing but vexatious, purposive, mala-fide and was instituted only to seek vendetta and therefore, impugned summoning order including the proceeding be quashed. 16. I have considered the submissions made by Sri Roy and also by Sri Basu and have vetted the oral and documentary evidences including the affidavit. Some common facts which are not disputed are that the petitioner/accused is the Chairman & Managing Director of M/s. Pataka Industries Private Limited who had previous acquaintance with the complainant/O.P.No.2 . It is also not disputed that the present petitioner made complaint to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of West Bengal against the complainant/O.P. No.2 bringing his misdeeds to the notice of the Hon'ble the Chief Minister, which was dispatched long before filing of the impugned petition of compliant by the complainant/O.P.No.2. From the contents of the said letter dated 03.03.2005 (Annexure P-3 at Page-147) it is evident that the same was in respect of professional misconduct of the complainant/O.P. No.2 and his behaviour. By writing such letter, the petitioner/accused raised his voice of protest against the improper and unethical conduct of the complainant/O.P. No.2 who was a high ranking police officer and also to protect and vindicate his right/interest. By writing such letter, the petitioner/accused raised his voice of protest against the improper and unethical conduct of the complainant/O.P. No.2 who was a high ranking police officer and also to protect and vindicate his right/interest. It further goes undisputed that on the basis of such letter a confidential enquiry was held wherein the present petitioner (accused No.2), Abdur Rahim Gazi (Accused No.1) and many others made statements and finally the charges brought/framed against the complainant/O.P.No.2 were substantiated and the Enquiry Authority recommended for initiation of a criminal proceeding against him. It is very much interesting to see that the complainant/O.P. No.2 did not make any whisper about such facts in his vividly drafted petition of complaint with articulation. Also he suppressed in his statement on oath made before the Learned Magistrate that he was found guilty by the Disciplinary Authority in the departmental proceeding. He, however, cleverly mentioned that the further proceeding have been stayed by the CAT. He has not annexed copy of such stay order. Although he enlisted some documents against the serial nos.90, 91 & 92 of his list of witnesses/documents annexed to the petition of complaint, but curiously enough, there is no specific particulars, nomenclature, nature and date of such documents. That is to say that such description of documents is as vague as his complaint is. It is further shocking to see that the Learned Magistrate did not care to take into consideration of such glaring defect and he simply directed issuance of process against the accused person only on perusal of the petition of complaint, initial statement of the complainant and documents as per list without making any discussion what were those documents. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the petition of complaint filed by the complainant/O.P. No.2 is a premature one. 17. Since the holding of the enquiry by the Vigilance Commissioner, West Bengal is an admitted fact, let us have a look into the relevant papers (Annexure P-4 collectively at Page 155 to Page 196). It appears from such annexures that as many as five charges were framed against the complainant/O.P. No.2 on various allegations. The contents of Article of Charge-II was as follows: "It appears that Shri Akbar Ali Khan, IPS, while functioning as Dy.Inspector General of Police, Home Guards, West Bengal, in course of his active involvement in the Real Estate business received an amount of Rs. The contents of Article of Charge-II was as follows: "It appears that Shri Akbar Ali Khan, IPS, while functioning as Dy.Inspector General of Police, Home Guards, West Bengal, in course of his active involvement in the Real Estate business received an amount of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Sixty Lacs) only from Mr. Mustak Hossain, Chairman, M/s. Pataka Industries (P) Ltd. on different dates between February-2004 and August-2004 in order to purchase land at Rajarhat areas, North-24-Parganas through Mr. Abdur Rahim Gazi, a land broker in the name of (1) M/S. Nishka Properties (P) Ltd., (2) M/S. Eureka Properties (P) Ltd. and (3) M/S. Subarnarekha Properties (P) Ltd. Accordingly Shri Khan paid Rs. 1,02,50,000/- (Rupees One Crore Two Lacks Fifty Thousand) only part by part to Mr. Abdur Rahim Gazi (land Broker) for purchasing land at Rajarhat areas and an amount of Rs. 57,50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Lacs Fifty Thousand) only was mis-appropriated by Shri Khan displaying grave misconduct. Such conduct of Shri Akbar Ali Khan, Prima facie, shows lack of integrity, which is improper and unbecoming of a public servant, and, as such, is violative of Rule 3(1) of All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968. The content of Article of Charge-I was that Shri Khan was involved in a trade relating to purchase and sale of landed property at Rajarhat areas between February, 2004 and September-2004 without prior sanction of the Government and thereby committed gross misconduct and such conduct of Sri Khan is violative of Rule 13(1) of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968. 18. It further appears from such Annexures that as many as 23 witnesses were examined in support of the charges and a plethora of documents were exhibited. Those witnesses were cross-examined by the present O.P. No.2 and he examined himself as the sole Defence Witness. The Learned Inquiring Authority Shri H.P. Chattapadhyay who is a retired member of WBHJS, Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries, Vigilance Commission, West Bengal after considering the entire evidence on record and having heard both the sides came to the finding that the allegation made out in the complaint has been fully corroborated by the P.W.s. and such allegation found support from the documentary evidence produced by the C.O. (O.P.No.2) and thereby found him guilty to all the five charges including the Charge Nos. I & II. Such judgment was passed on 23.10.2006. 19. I & II. Such judgment was passed on 23.10.2006. 19. On perusal of the petition of complaint (Annexure P-I) it appears that the same was filed on 29.08.2007 i.e. after 10 months from the date of judgment passed by the Inquiry Authority and there is no cogent explanation for such inordinate delay in filing the complaint. It further appears that the complainant mentioned names of 89 witnesses in the Annexure of list of witnesses but curiously enough he did not mention the name of the father/husband or address of any one of those witnesses. The complaint also does not spell out the names and addresses of the persons who allegedly paid money to the wife of the complainant. Equally it is silent as to whom of those persons paid how much amount and on which dates. Further noticeable omission which the petition of complaint bears is that how, when and through whom they became introduced/acquainted with the accused No.1 and when they contacted with him in order to purchase the lands in question and what were the terms and conditions of the agreement/settlement between them and the accused No.1. Be that as it may there is no whisper in the petition of complaint showing involvement of the present petitioner with the alleged transaction which was an exclusive and private affair between the O.P. No.2 and his wife and the accused No.1 Abdur Rahim Gazi. It is further alleged that the entire payment was made to the accused No.1 and the complainant noted such payment in his own hand writing and signature in a diary brought and maintained by the accused No.1. Therefore, the entrustment of money, if any, by the O.P. No.2 was made to the accused No.1. Also the allegation is that the entrusted sum of money was mis-appropriated by the accused No.1. Therefore, there being admittedly no entrustment of the property (money) to the present petitioner, no offence under Section 406 IPC is made out against him in as much as the essential ingredient to constitute the offence under Section 406 of the IPC that the accused against whom allegation of criminal breach of trust is made, must be entrusted with the property or he must have dominion over the property, is lacking. 20. 20. Offence under Section 420 of the IPC provides for the penalty for the offence of cheating which is defined under Section 415 of the IPC. The essence of the offence of cheating is that there should be deception either by express word or by implied conduct, which may be direct or indirect depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The most essential ingredient in the absence of which charge under Section 420 IPC is bound to fail is that deception must be practised at the inception of the transaction whereby the accused either dishonestly or fraudulently induced a person so deceived to deliver property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property. From the averments made in the petition of complaint and also from the initial statement made by the complainant it becomes crystal clear that the O.P. No.2 and his wife had entered into the deal with the accused No.1 themselves and the accused No.2 i.e. the present petitioner had no role to play in it. That is to say that if at all any representation and that too false and fraudulent representation was made to them it was done by the accused No.1 to whom they handed over the sum of Rs. 1,02,50,000/-. Therefore, there is nothing to indicate even remotely that the present petitioner exercised any initial deception or inducement upon the O.P. No.2 and his wife relying upon which they parted with the property namely the said amount of money. Thus it is apparent that the basic ingredient of the offence of cheating is conspicuously absent in the petition of complaint and accordingly no charge under Section 420 of the IPC can lie against the present petitioner. 21. Coming to the allegation of criminal conspiracy I would like to say that offence under Section 120B of the IPC would be applicable only when the ingredients of criminal conspiracy as defined under Section 120A of the IPC are present. Section 120A IPC reads as follows:- "120A. 21. Coming to the allegation of criminal conspiracy I would like to say that offence under Section 120B of the IPC would be applicable only when the ingredients of criminal conspiracy as defined under Section 120A of the IPC are present. Section 120A IPC reads as follows:- "120A. Definition of Criminal Conspiracy.-When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done:- (1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a Criminal Conspiracy: Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof." Therefore, it is evident that a criminal conspiracy by itself is a substantive offence. Such offence is complete as soon as the agreement to commit the offence is made. It is immaterial whether the substantive offence pursuant to such conspiracy is committed or not. From the recitals of the petition of complaint, it is found that (as has been hereinbefore mentioned) there was a contract/agreement between the O.P. No.2 and his wife and the accused No.1 and the present petitioner was not seen in the scene at such episode. It has further been found already that the allegation of cheating or criminal breach of trust was not an outcome of any conspiracy hatched up between the accused Nos.1 & 2 (present petitioner). Allegations whichever have been levelled against the present petitioner relate to subsequent acts. Therefore, it can be safely stated that the petition of complaint is devoid of any recital indicating the involvement of the present petitioner in connection with the alleged criminal conspiracy and therefore, no charge under Section 120B of the IPC can be maintained against the present petitioner. 22. By perusing the allegation made in the petition of complaint I am satisfied that no case of criminal breach of trust, cheating or criminal conspiracy has been made out. In this view of the matter, calling upon the accused/petitioner to face trial would be travesty of justice. 23. 22. By perusing the allegation made in the petition of complaint I am satisfied that no case of criminal breach of trust, cheating or criminal conspiracy has been made out. In this view of the matter, calling upon the accused/petitioner to face trial would be travesty of justice. 23. In the case of M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others reported in AIR 1998 SC 128, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that forms of judicial review can be exercised to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to correct some grave errors that might have been committed by the Sub-ordinate Courts. In the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down some guidelines for the exercise of inherent power by the High Courts to quash Criminal proceedings in such exceptional cases. To take note of two such guidelines which are relevant for the present case: "(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala-fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 24. The Learned Judicial Magistrate, Alipore while passing the summoning order had only discussed that he was satisfied that a prima facie case under Section 406/420/120B IPC was made out against the accused person. He did not discuss how the allegations recited in the compliant constituted the alleged offence. While passing the summoning order, it is obligatory on the part of the Learned Magistrate to consider the material and evidence placed on record in the light of offence allegedly committed and analyze it so as to come to a conclusion whether the commission of offence in terms of provisions of law was disclosed or not. Just reproducing a part of the evidence and stating that he was satisfied that there was sufficient material on record to summon the accused, only shows non-application of mind. Just reproducing a part of the evidence and stating that he was satisfied that there was sufficient material on record to summon the accused, only shows non-application of mind. Such an order is a mechanical order since the Trial Court did not apply mind whether the ingredients of the offence were prima facie satisfied or not. The Learned Magistrate in this case abdicated his obligation of analyzing the material in the light of provisions of Sections 406/420/120B IPC. 25. It is admitted by the complainant (O.P. No.2) that he faced the departmental proceeding and he was found guilty after conclusion of the enquiry proceedings by the Disciplinary Authority. It has further been mentioned that the complainant faced such proceedings for direct involvement with Real Estate business and also for receiving an amount of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- from the present petitioner Mustak Hossain (O.P. No.1). It has further been mentioned that he was found guilty for both these Articles of Charge. Though the complainant has stated that the Central Administrative Tribunal had stayed further proceedings but he for reasons unexplained did not bring out the true picture in clear terms. That is to say what was that order and how long it was stayed etc. etc. He has also not divulged what happened to that stay order. Be that as it may, the stay order must have been granted for a limited period and in no case it does mean that the finding of the Disciplinary Authority has been set aside. Further the complainant also instituted a Civil Suit being Title Suit No.994 of 2007 for declaration that he and his wife are the real owners of those properties and the accused companies (accused Nos.6, 7 & 8) are mere trustees thereof. The said suit was instituted on 23.08.2007 i.e. six days ahead of filing of the impugned criminal proceeding. Relevant in this context to mention is that the Articles of Charge were framed on 29.03.2006 against the complainant (O.P.No.2) in the departmental proceeding and the final judgment finding him guilty was delivered on 23.10.2006. Therefore on the backdrop of such admitted factual matrix I find that the petition of complaint was a gross misuse of judicial process. 26. To put an end to the discussion the revision is allowed. Therefore on the backdrop of such admitted factual matrix I find that the petition of complaint was a gross misuse of judicial process. 26. To put an end to the discussion the revision is allowed. The impugned summoning order dated 17.12.2007 and the proceedings of the complaint case NO.C-8738 of 2007 under Section 406/420/120B IPC are hereby quashed. 27. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Learned Trial Court for its information. 28. Criminal Section is directed to deliver urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible. Revision application is allowed.