Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 170 (GAU)

Prasenjit Kumar Dasgupta v. State of Assam

2018-01-30

HITESH KUMAR SARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. This is a petition, made under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., praying for setting aside and quashing the proceeding of Complaint Case No. 410/2014, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaigaon and the order, dated 15-12-2014, by which cognizance was taken in respect of offences under Sections 420/406 of the IPC, against the accused- petitioner. 2. I have perused the petition and the annexure furnished therewith. 3. I have heard Mr. S Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B Sarma, Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 4. The fact of the case is that the present respondent No. 2 lent an amount of Rs.4 Lakhs to the present accused-petitioner as he was in financial hardship to run his business. The aforesaid Rs.4 Lakhs was given to the accused-petitioner as both of them were friends and the respondent No. 2 was approached by the accused-petitioner for financial assistance. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was notarized agreement between both the parties so far return of the aforesaid amount to the respondent No. 2 is concerned, stipulating some terms and conditions therefor. 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since there is an agreement in respect of aforesaid amount of Rs.4 Lakhs, no criminal case lies; rather, it is a civil liability. Therefore, the respondent No. 2 ought to have approached the civil Court. 7. In the instant case, in the considered view of this Court, criminal case lies against the accused-petitioner as in a criminal case also there may be overwhelming or pre-dominant elements of civil dispute as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph-15 (vii) in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and ors. vs. State of Gujarat and anr., in Criminal Appeal No. 1723 of 2017, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9549/2016. 8. That being the position, this Court is not inclined to invoke the provision of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding of the aforesaid complaint case. 9. Accordingly the petition stands dismissed.