Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
(Rajiv Poddar vs State & Anr.) on 9 August, 2017
1 17 09.08.2017an Court No. 34
CRR 3851 of 2014 (Rajiv Poddar vs. State & anr.) Mr. Asif Hussain Mr. Abhishek Singh ........ For the petitioner Heard the petitioner.
Despite service of three successive notices of this application, the private opposite party did not turn up.
Affidavit of service filed today be kept with the record. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that he has been falsely implicated in this case and that the complaint does not speak of any involvement of the present petitioner so far as the alleged commission of offence is concerned. He further submitted that in the complaint, entire allegation has been labelled against the accused nos. 1 to 4.
After thorough scrutiny, it appears to me that in para 14 of the complaint, the complainant wanted to say that accused nos. 1 to 4 had entered into an agreement with the present accused petitioner and six others. Although, the former agreement was still in existence at the relevant point of time. Except this part, there is no other allegation against him.
In para 15 of the complaint, he has categorically stated that knowing it fully well about the existence of previous Memorandum of Understanding dated 8.4.2002, the present petitioner and others entered into an agreement with accused nos. 1 to 4.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has referred to 2 a letter written to him at page 69 of this revisional application and contended that "it is thus with obvious mala fide and ulterior motives that owners have neither disclosed the existence of MOU dated 8.4.2002 executed with my clients to the said Hansraj Jain nor yourself".
This goes to show that the petitioner is also confused that there was any involvement or knowledge of the present accused petitioner at the time of making an agreement with accused nos. 1 to 4.
It is perhaps needless to say that for the purpose of cheating, there must be an inception to cheat at the first instance. Since, there is no such averment in the petition of complaint and the factual aspects depicts that there is no ingredient of any offence reflected in the FIR itself.
This being the position, this revisional application stands allowed. Accordingly, the complaint case being C 5331/2014 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 10th Court, Alipore, South 24 Paraganas is hereby quashed in respect of the accused petitioner, Dileep Singh Mehta.
Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities.
(Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J.)