Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1048 (CAL)

Rupesh Gupta v. State of West Bengal

2016-12-20

INDRAJIT CHATTERJEE

body2016
JUDGMENT : Indrajit Chatterjee, J. 1. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioners in Court today be kept with the record. 2. Mr. Sataroop Purakayastha, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner is permitted to amend the cause title of the application. 3. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which the accused/petitioners have prayed for quashing of the complaint case, being C. Case No. 5192 of 2010 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 7th Court, Alipore, South 24-Parganas. 4. One application, being CRAN 3106 of 2016 has been filed praying for stay of all further proceeding of this case. 5. Heard Mr. Sataroop Purakayastha, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners. None is present on behalf of the opposite parties. 6. It is submitted by Mr. Purakayastha by taking me to page 6 of the revisional application to say that this revisional application has been preferred mainly on the ground that the complainant paid the entire amount of consideration by cash and for which the complaint issued a receipt to that effect on a notarial stamp paper and the property was entirely registered by the complainant in favour of the accused persons. Mr. Purakayastha further took me to annexure ‘2’ (running page 12) that is a photocopy of that notarial affidavit to show that actually Rs. 45,00,000/- was paid by the accused person to the complainant. He also took me to one unregistered ‘Baina Patra’ of one Rupesh Gupta that is the petitioner No. 1 and Kashinath Sahu that is the opposite party o. 2 dated July 16, 2009. 7. It is submission of Mr. Purakayastha that this unregistered ‘Baina Patra’ and the affidavit are in impeachable evidence and those are the documents on which this Court can rely in deciding one application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. A proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not a mini trial of a case. It is not the proper forum to prove without any admitted unimpeachable document that the entire amount as claimed in the complaint was paid. It has to be proved before the Trial Court as to what is the value of the said affidavit or whether through that affidavit valuable consideration passed. It is not the proper forum to prove without any admitted unimpeachable document that the entire amount as claimed in the complaint was paid. It has to be proved before the Trial Court as to what is the value of the said affidavit or whether through that affidavit valuable consideration passed. Neither this affidavit nor unregistered ‘Baina Patra’ on a stamp paper of Rs. 20 can be treated as public document as claimed by Mr. Purakayastha. All these may be proved before the learned Trial Court by the defence at the time of trial but these documents cannot be taken care of by this Court in a proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in this revisional application and it fails. Thus, this criminal revisional application is disposed of on merit and answered in the negative. 10. Office is directed to communicate this order to the learned Trial Court. 11. The learned Trial Court will try to dispose of this 138 proceeding as early as possible with the cooperation of the learned Advocates of the parties. 12. The application for stay of the impugned proceeding has become infructuous and it is also disposed of. 13. There will be no order as to costs. 14. Let copy of this order be forwarded to the learned Trial Court for strict compliance.