Krishna Das vs Autotech Services Ltd.

Ashim Kumar Roy, J.—The petitioners who have been arraigned as accused in connection with a case instituted on a complaint relating to the offence punishable under sections 420/ 406/ 408/ 506IPC, which is now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 6th Court, Sealdah, South 24-Parganas, being Complaint Case No. 736 of 2013, has approached this court for quashing of the same.

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. Considered their respective submissions. Perused the impugned complaint and other materials on record.

Quashing has been sought for on the grounds,

(a) Since the alleged misappropriated amount was payable to the complainant on account of maintenance and repair of vehicle, the dispute, if any, is civil in nature.

(b) The amount allegedly misappropriated is contradictory.

(c) In the petition of complaint it was alleged that total sum of Rs. 6.2 lakhs was misappropriated but in the notice the same was alleged to be Rs. 6.47 lakhs.

(d) In the advocate's notice it was admitted that the complainant received Rs. 7.5 lakhs from Adarsh Paribahan and the said amount includes Rs. 5.5 lakhs the alleged misappropriated amount.

(e) There is no material to show that the alleged misappropriated money was payable by Adarsh Paribahan to the complainant and same has been received by the accused persons, i.e., the petitioners herein.

(f) There was no outstanding as alleged.

(g) Already on the basis of the self-same allegation, an FIR has been lodged and the same gave rise to Barasat Police Station Case No. 1368 of 2012.

(h) The impugned case has been filed by suppressing the real facts.

(i) The complainant agreed to settle the matter out of court.

In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that they are innocent and allegations are absolutely false. It is also contended that this complaint case cannot be permitted to proceed any further since over the self-same allegation, a case is under police investigation.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant/opposite party vehemently opposed this application for quashing and contended there is no scope for settlement of the matter out of court as have been claimed from the side of the petitioners. He further submitted the petitioners have misappropriated huge amount of money to the tune of Rs. 6.47 lakhs and obtaining payment from the different parties, the same was not paid to the complainant.

The grounds on which quashing has been sought, for are all relates to disputed question of facts. Which version of the case is true, whether that is of the complainant or of the accused is required to be tested during the trial on evidence and is the function of the trial court. It is not legally permissible for the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, to adjudicate such issue. Apart from that, those are essentially the defence of the accused and can only be utilized during the trial. Although it is claimed that over the self-same allegations, an FIR has been lodged with the Barasat Police Station, being the Barasat Police Station Case No. 1368 of 2012 and the impugned complaint was filed long thereafter in the year 2013 but no copy of the FIR has been filed along with this criminal revisional application. Therefore, there cannot be any question to take into consideration such claim of the petitioners. Assuming such contention of the petitioners is correct then in that case the petitioners is to take appropriate steps in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The power possessed by the High Court under its inherent jurisdiction not to be resorted to, where there is a specific provision in the Code for the redressal of the grievances of the aggrieved party. It be noted going through the allegations made in the petition of complaint, it can hardly be said that no offence is made out.

This criminal revision has no merit and accordingly stands dismissed.

With the dismissal of the main criminal revision the application for extension of interim order becomes infructuous and accordingly same is also stands dismissed.

Photostat certified copy of the Judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties at an early date.