JUDGMENT : SIDDHARTHA CHATTOPADHYAY, J. Being aggrieved with the charge-sheet filed against the petitioner under Section 120B/406/420 of I.P.C. corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1095 of 2014 pending before the learned C.M.M Calcutta, the petitioner has filed this revisional application with a prayer for quashing of the said proceeding on the grounds stated below. 2. According to the petitioner they have been arraigned as an accused by invoking the concept of vicarious liability which is alien to the criminal jurisprudence prevailing in our country. 3. The petitioner's case in a capsulated form is such that originally one Mohan Lal Patwari was the owner of the business. He had five sons namely Ishwarlal, Bharat Lal, Ramji, Ram Gopal and Bishwamber Lal. The present petitioner is the son of Ishwarlal and the complainant/respondent is the son of Bharat Lal. In 1989, there was a separation between the family members of Mohan Lal Patwari and the assets of Patwari family were divided amongst four sons of Mohan Lal Patwari. Be it mentioned, that the property of Bishwamber Lal Patwari was separated long back in 1977/1978. The family disputes of Ishwarlal and Ram Gopal was the subject matter of several civil and criminal litigations and ultimately Hon'ble Supreme Court appointed Justice M. Jagannadha Rao, retired Judge of Supreme Court of India, as a mediator. The said Bharat Lal Patwari also was approached i.e father of the complainant. After a long persuasion by the Hon'ble Judge of Apex Court, memorandum of understanding was prepared amongst the representatives' of Ishwarlal Patwari, Bharat Lal Patwari, Ram Gopal Patwari. It was unanimously and exclusively settled that the shares in Sterlite group would be given to Mumbai branch by the Hyderabad and Chennai Branch and the rights of Hyderabad branch over the property situated Hyderabad and shares of Telegana Weaving and Spinning mills held by Mumbai and Chennai Branch be given to Hyderabad Branch without any reservations. The said memorandum of understanding would unerringly demonstrate that it was categorically decided by and between the parties that they do not have any claim and/or further claim in respect of the issues settled therein and each of the parties to the said mediation proceeding will be debarred from raising any claim regarding the issues settled therein in future. The said memorandum of understanding would unerringly demonstrate that it was categorically decided by and between the parties that they do not have any claim and/or further claim in respect of the issues settled therein and each of the parties to the said mediation proceeding will be debarred from raising any claim regarding the issues settled therein in future. After a prolonged conciliation, the said mediation proceeding achieved its' success and the Hon'ble Mediator Justice M. Jagannadha Rao vide his report dated 7th August, 2010 submitted before the Hon'ble Apex Court holding that the transfer of shares of Sterlite group held by Bharat Lal Patwari (complainant's father) and Ram Gopal Patwari and their respective family members to be given in favour of Ishwarlal Patwari. It is pertinent to note that the said mediation proceeding was initiated at the behest of the Hon'ble Apex Court. After getting the said report Hon'ble Apex Court put a seal of approval in the said mediation report. But at the time of filing the F.I.R., the complainant surreptitiously omitted to mention the same, and this indicates the malicious intention of the complainant opposite party. The Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 13th August, 2010, accepted the report of the mediator and was pleased to opine that all the disputes between the parties have been settled and as such the criminal proceeding pending between the parties at that point of time stands quashed. Subsequently, another memorandum of understanding dated 25th July, 2010 entered into by and between the parties and this was practically a supplemental memorandum of understanding between the family of Ishwarlal Patwari (present petitioner's father) and Bharat Lal Patwari (father of the complainant opposite party). In the supplemental memorandum of understanding there was also a waiver clause debarring either side of the parties to raise any claim in future. In terms of the said mediation the present complainant's father i.e. Bharat Lal Patwari received shares of Sterlite Technology Ltd. valued approximately Rs. 4 crores at the relevant point of time and they have also received title over the property situated at Chennai which is approximately valued at Rs. 50 crores. The sister of complainant also received shares worth Rs. 1.5 crores. 4 crores at the relevant point of time and they have also received title over the property situated at Chennai which is approximately valued at Rs. 50 crores. The sister of complainant also received shares worth Rs. 1.5 crores. The complaint has been filed regarding distribution of shares, split shares, bonus shares and unpaid dividend accrued till the point of time when the settlement was arrived at by two memorandum of understandings dated 25th July, 2010 and 16th December, 2010. In the said mediation proceeding the branches of Bharat Lal Patwari since deceased was duly represented and they had informed the Hon'ble mediator that all the disputes by and between the family of Ishwarlal Patwari and Bharat Lal Patwari had been dissolved. It is also alleged by the present petitioner that Patwari Export Pvt. Ltd. was promoted by Ishwarlal Patwari and Bharat Lal Patwari as their family business. The complainant was the director of said Patwari Exports Pvt. Ltd. and was at the helm of affairs. The management of the said company had taken a decision that the buy-back proceeds of the shares of Sterlite Industries (India) held by family of Late Mohan Lal Patwari would be invested in Patwari Exports Pvt. Ltd. Pursuant to such family agreement the share warrants were sent by Sterlite group to both the addresses i.e at Chennai address of the complainant as well as to the address, care of Indian Overseas Corporation. Thereafter the complainant had initiated a writ petition against the said company and others over the self-same disputes. The said writ petition was filed suppressing the material facts and by way of making some distorted and twisted description. However, after getting the F.I.R. the Investigating Officer has made a stereotyped investigation, which is perfunctory in nature, and submitted charge-sheet. The complainant in his F.I.R. mentioned that the present petitioner cheated him during the last 15 years and he wanted to get some documents but he could not disclose the factual aspects as mentioned above. The petitioner prayed for quashing of the proceeding on the ground that there is no deception at the very inception. He mostly relied on the memorandum of understanding entered into by and between them including their predecessor who were there in the said mediation proceeding. The said mediation proceeding has been approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court and accordingly the F.I.R. should be quashed. 4. He mostly relied on the memorandum of understanding entered into by and between them including their predecessor who were there in the said mediation proceeding. The said mediation proceeding has been approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court and accordingly the F.I.R. should be quashed. 4. The complainant/opposite party filed an application for vacating the interim order passed by His Lordship Hon'ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi and the said vacating petition be treated as affidavit in opposition. According to the complainant/opposite party, the petitioner in the garb of settlement of a family disputes tried to cover up the crime committed by them and offence of forgery is amply established. The dispute pertains to illegal/fraudulent encashment of the buy-back proceeds issued in the form of negotiable instrument in favour of the personal names of the share-holders including the complainant/opposite party and his family members. Actually the shares of Sterlite Industries now known as Vedanta Ltd. were bought-back illegally by the company itself and served a notice upon him of the buy-back scheme at Calcutta address although his address was at Chennai. Since 2002 he was asking for dividends but he was not provided with the copies of instruments and the mode and manner in which the same were encashed. He got the information from Canara Bank Overseas Branch and thereafter he has become sure that a forgery was committed and accordingly he lodged the F.I.R. 5. At the time of hearing learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that when mediation proceeding was going on at the behest of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the father of the complainant/opposite party were present and vide page 3 of the said memorandum of understanding dated 24.07.2010 it appears that the present complainant is also present there and his name transpires at serial no. 3 of page 3 of the said memorandum of understanding. 3 of page 3 of the said memorandum of understanding. The Page 4 also speaks that the complainant petitioner was shown as 3rd party in the said memorandum of understanding and it was held that the mediator may decide not only the disputes arising out of O.S 460 of 2007 but also other disputes between 1st, 2nd and 3rd party in relation to transfer of shares as between 1st, 2nd and 3rd parties in Telegana Weaving and Spinning Mills Ltd. as Sterlite Industries India Ltd. and Sterlite Optical Technologies Ltd. It also appears from page 7 of the said memorandum of understanding, that there is reflection vide clause 6(b) “the transfer of shares by the 3rd party as aforementioned shall also include transfer of 80752 shares in Telegana Weaving and Spinning Mills Ltd., held by Shri. Mahesh Patwari (natural son of Shri. Bharat Lal Patwari and adopted son of late Ramji Lal Patwari) and claimed by him exclusively as the legal descendant of late Ramji Lal Patwari and Smt. Manohari Patwari. It was also settled vide clause 11 of that O.S pending before the City Civil Court at Hyderabad, criminal proceedings filed by the 2nd party against 3rd party as well as Sterlite Industries India Ltd., should be withdrawn. Clause 13 speaks “it is confirmed that 1st and 3rd parties have settled among themselves. Their disputes inter se and 2nd party will have nothing to do with the same either at present or in future. There is also waiver clause in clause 20. Thereafter another meeting was held on 30th July, 2010 at Hyderabad in which father of the present complainant was present. The report was submitted by the Hon'ble Mediator before the Apex Court and Apex Court vide order dated August 30, 2010 accepted the memorandum of understanding in toto. Subsequently another memorandum of understanding was held by and between the parties and in which the complainant's father figured at 2nd party and he represents for himself and on behalf of his sons namely Ganesh Patwari (present complainant), Mahesh Patwari, Rabi Patwari, Keshab Patwari and his daughter Prem Lalta Agarwal. It has been specifically mentioned that the members of 2nd party i.e. father of the present complainant are holding shares of Sterlite Technologies as set out in schedule attached thereto. It has been specifically mentioned that the members of 2nd party i.e. father of the present complainant are holding shares of Sterlite Technologies as set out in schedule attached thereto. Therefore, in all the memorandum of understandings the father of the present complainant was present and took part in the discussion and put his signature in the settlement arrived at by and between the parties. According to the petitioner, by virtue of the said report of the mediator dispute has been disposed of with a rider that no party can claim anything in future. In spite of that the present complainant/opposite party lodged the F.I.R. which is opposed to the settlement arrived at between the parties and the said settlement has been approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court. No other family members of Bharatlal Patwari has come forward to support the present complainant/opposite party. According to him, there is no ingredient of cheating or entrustment and naturally question of criminal conspiracy does not arise. 6. At the time of hearing, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party contended that they have cleverly and cunningly enjoyed the so called buy-back shares/dividend and practically those were misappropriated by the present petitioner/accused. He further added that he does not have any knowledge regarding the same although he has been deprived of getting his share since 2002. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that after 2002 to 2010 there was no whisper made by the complainant that in the year 2010 there were family agreements and that the father of the complainant attended to the meeting and put his signature on behalf of himself and also on behalf of the present complainant/opposite party. In terms of the two successive memorandum of understanding, the parties attended before the mediator had come to a settlement that the litigations pending by and between the parties be withdrawn and there is also a waiver clause that no party shall initiate any proceeding in future claiming their any right or share. In terms of the two successive memorandum of understanding, the parties attended before the mediator had come to a settlement that the litigations pending by and between the parties be withdrawn and there is also a waiver clause that no party shall initiate any proceeding in future claiming their any right or share. The said memorandum of understanding, which were held by the Hon'ble Mediator Justice M. Jagannadha Rao, were sent before the Hon'ble Apex Court and after going through the said report of the Hon'ble Mediator, the Apex Court has approved the same and thereby all the disputes were set at rest and the parties were precluded from raising any dispute over the said issues in future. In spite of that the F.I.R. was lodged only to harass them and to squeeze the money. 7. He also argued that there is no ingredient of any offence as set out in the petition of complaint and even if the entire contents of F.I.R. is considered on face value even then, the case under Section 406/420 does not lie. 8. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party relied on the decisions reported in 1999 (2) Supreme 442 (in connection with Rajesh Bazaz v. State of N.C.T. Delhi,) 2006 (6) Supreme 66 (in connection with Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd.,) 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : AIR 92 SC 604, (in connection with State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal,) (2009) 4 SCC 66 (in connection with Mahesh Chowdhury v. State of Rajasthan,) (2002) 1 SCC 555 , (Kamala Devi Agarwal v. State of West Bengal 2008). In the said decision the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly laid down the ratio in regard to the alleged offence. After going through the aforesaid judgments, on which the complainant/opposite party relied, it appears to me that the ratio is laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that it is not necessary that a complaint should verbatim reproduce in the body of the complaint all the ingredients of the offence he is alleging. Nor is it necessary that the complainant would state in so many words that the accused has a dishonest or fraudulent intention. Splitting up of the definition into different components of the offence to make a meticulous scrutiny. Nor is it necessary that the complainant would state in so many words that the accused has a dishonest or fraudulent intention. Splitting up of the definition into different components of the offence to make a meticulous scrutiny. The crux of the postulate is the intention of the person who induces the victim of his representation and not the nature of the transaction which would become decisive in discerning whether there was commission of offence or not. The power to quash shall not however be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The Hon'ble Apex Court wanted to say that it does not require to reproduce all the ingredients in the body of the complainant by so many words. But that does not mean that the Hon'ble Apex Court decided that every complaint has to be accepted in toto even if there is no element of offence at all. At least on perusal of the complaint the court has to be satisfied itself that an offence is made out. But if the petition of complaint does not make out any case in that case court is not denuded of its powers to quash the same. It is accepted principles of law that to constitute an offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. there must be a deception at the very inception. In the four corners of the petition of complaint it does not appear that there was any deception from the inception. If, he for the first time came to know that his right has been seriously prejudice in the year 2002, what prevented him from drawing the attention of the Court. He ought to have taken recourse to law instantly. This apart, father on behalf of himself and on behalf of his other family members including the present complainant, entered into the agreement. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/opposite party contended that he has filed an affidavit after execution of the original memorandum of understanding as well as supplemental memorandum of understanding and he had sent it by registered post to the said authority. At the time of hearing, for the first time he has produced Xerox copy of the affidavit. Curiously enough, the said affidavit does not bear any date. At the time of hearing, for the first time he has produced Xerox copy of the affidavit. Curiously enough, the said affidavit does not bear any date. However Xerox copy of the envelope was also produced which speaks that it was sent to the Hon'ble Mediator on 20.05.2011 i.e. long after its acceptance by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Be it mentioned, that the Hon'ble Apex Court accepted the report of the Hon'ble Mediator on 30th August, 2010. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party does not impress me much. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the state contended that the investigation is already completed and charge-sheet has been submitted. On perusal of the charge-sheet it appears that just before submitting it before the trial court, the Investigating Officer has written “thereafter, the notices under Section 41A Cr.P.C. were served to the accused persons but they did not turn up for their examination. The accused persons could not find out despite several efforts. Therefore, in pursuant to the notices under Section 41A of Cr.P.C., the accused persons sent letters, in which, they have mentioned that both the complainant party and the accused party are belonging to the same family tree, wherein, various family disputes concerning the instant issue and other disputes have cropped up, for solving which, various litigations/cases are sub-justice in the various courts of law and even upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, who appointed one retired Hon'ble Justice of the Hon'ble Apex Court as the Mediator who settled the disputes between the family members through a memorandum of understanding amongst them. Investigation of the case has since been completed and, prima facie, a case under Section 120B/406/420 of I.P.C. against the F.I.R. named accused persons has been established. In the said charge-sheet the Investigating Officer has mentioned that in terms of the notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. they have mentioned that the disputes were settled in terms of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer specified by saying that investigation of the case has since been completed and a prima facie case under Section 120B/406/420 of I.P.C. against the F.I.R. named accused persons has been established. There is no indication in the charge-sheet that they verified the said terms and conditions of the memorandum of understanding. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer specified by saying that investigation of the case has since been completed and a prima facie case under Section 120B/406/420 of I.P.C. against the F.I.R. named accused persons has been established. There is no indication in the charge-sheet that they verified the said terms and conditions of the memorandum of understanding. The word used by the Investigating Officer “investigation of the case has since been completed” goes to show that on that point he has not made any the investigation at all. The complainant opposite party failed to show that there was ever any entrustment of the property. If any entrustment was there that was by his father, who is one of the signatories of the memorandum of understanding, waived his own right and naturally there is no entrustment in favour of the present complainant/opposite party. 9. This Court is not oblivious to the fact that there is a growing tendency in business circles to convert a pure civil disputes into criminal cases. This is mainly on the account of a prevalent intention that to get the fruits from civil court are time consuming and may not adequately protect the interest of the creditors. There is also a notion in the minds of some persons that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution the remedy is very easier. 10. In such circumstances, I am of the view that it is a fit case where the entire prosecution should be quashed. Accordingly, the revisional application succeeds. The charge-sheet bearing G.R. Case No. 1095 of 2014 stands quashed. However, liberty is given to the complainant/opposite party to avail his remedy, if available from any other forum, if so advised. 11. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned court below at once for information and taking necessary action. 12. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.