9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... report in connection with CID P.S. Case No. 03/2017. In CID P.S. Case No. 03/2017 the allegation of misappropriation of money was amounting to Rs. 1,36,97,352/- whereas the Criminal Case No. 3204/2017 is only in connection with the dishonour of cheque amounting to Rs. 81 lacs which is alleged to have been issued by the present petitioners. From the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it is seen that the subject matter of both the proceedings cannot be considered as same or similar to stay the proceedings of the criminal complaint case. More so, it is also seen that the CID (Assam) Case No. 03/2017 has already been quashed by this Court and hence the question of stay of the present proceeding also does not arise at this stage. Further, the alternative prayer of the petitioners to convert the prayer of the present case for setting aside and quashing of the entire criminal proceeding also cannot be entertained at present for quashing of the entire case by invoking power u/s 482 Cr.PC. Conclusion - The learned Trial Court below committed no irregularity or mistake by passing the order dated 12.10.2018 by rejecting the prayer of the petitioners filed u/s 210 Cr.PC and hence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioners was limited to the extent only as a facilitator with the payment of commission to the petitioners as managing agent especially in view and in terms of the said agreement. 4. The respondent company could not carry out their business operations properly and also failed to make payments to the suppliers/traders and therefore the business transactions with the respondent company had been affected. The petitioners had huge outstanding dues recoverable from the respondent company in pursuance of said agreement and on account of and for managing the grain handling and logistics. Accordingly, the petitioners sent letter dated 05.09.2016 to the BBPL [respondent no. 2] and demanded the outstanding amount of Rs. 84,64,998/- which was still payable by the respondent no. 2. The petitioners made several requests for payment of the money but, the respondent no. 2 by flimsy excuses one after another did not made any payment only with an intention to defraud the petitioners. However, the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent for non-payment of dues are purely commercial/civil in nature and in spite of the existence of the said agreement, the respondent no. 2 without r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S and thus the said cheque is the subject matter of C.R. Case No. 4683C/2017 and when put some signatures on some documents and cheques, he was allowed to go. After the said incident, the petitioner was under utter shock and panic and he was also compelled to send a letter to the complainant on 09.08.2017 through Speed Post and also cited the entire incident and prayed for justice. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Court and on the basis of the complaint a case/proceedings initiated being Complaint Case No. 2640/2017 u/s 143/323/341/386/506/120B/34 IPC. 6. Thereafter, the petitioner no. 2 filed a criminal petition u/s 482 Cr.PC before this Court for quashing of CID (Assam) P.S. Case No. 03/2017 and hearing the parties this Court had stayed the further proceeding of this case by its order dated 10.10.2017. Petitioners then decided to lodge a complaint. Thus vide the said CID (Assam) P.S. Case No. 03/2017 dated 01.02.2017, the respondent no. 2 made illegal demands from the petitioners which is not legally entitled by the respondent no. 2. The signatures were also obtained by the respondent only threatening the petitioners for illegal gain of recovery of Rs. 1,36,97,352/- and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the transactions and the incidents in both the cases which ought to have been considered before passing the said interim order and mechanically passed the order without assigning any reason and passed the order only in a routine manner. 12. The learned Trial Court below was erred in law by holding that the offence is alleged to had been committed by the petitioners in the Criminal Complaint Case being C.R. Case No. 4683C/2017 and the CID (Assam) P.S. Case No. 03/2017 are not same and as such the provisions u/s 210 Cr.PC is not applicable for calling a report from CID in connection with the CID (Assam) P.S. Case No. 03/2017. He further submitted that the learned Trial Court below also failed to appreciate the fact that the alleged amount which has been extorted by the respondent no. 2 from the petitioners, which is the subject matter of the CID (Assam) Case No. 03/2017 is inclusive of all cheques amount in the said criminal complaint case and the investigation of the CID case was also stayed by this Court and any liability from the cheque in question against the petitioners does not arise at all. Accordingly, it is submitted by Mr. Gooptu that the order of rejection passed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idered as the case under the same footing. More so, the police case is already quashed. Further he submitted that there is no scope for invoking Section 482 Cr.PC and the Magistrate rightly passed the order by rejecting the prayer of the petitioner as both the cases are different cases, procedures are also different, even the object of the special jurisdiction is also different and hence the learned Trial Court below righty held that the petition u/s 210 Cr.PC is not at all maintainable. 16. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as the case of CID (Assam) P.S. Case No. 03/2017 had already been quashed, the present petition may be converted as a petition for quashing and the entire proceeding may be quashed accordingly by invoking power u/s 482 Cr.PC. 17. Mr. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel submitted in this regard that the conversion cannot be made at this stage as the entire petition is only against the order of the learned Trial Court below or rejecting the prayer made by the petitioner u/s 210 Cr.PC and hence question of conversion does not arise at all. 18. Ms. S.H. Bora, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his signature on those cheques in question as he was forced to put the signature and threatened by the respondent side by engaging some persons. But, that disputed question as to whether the signature was put by the petitioner under compulsion etc. are the points to be decided at the time of final hearing of the Complaint Case which is pending before the learned JMFC, Kamrup u/s 138 of the N.I. Act. But, from the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it is seen that the subject matter of both the proceedings cannot be considered as same or similar to stay the proceedings of the criminal complaint case. More so, it is also seen that the CID (Assam) Case No. 03/2017 has already been quashed by this Court and hence the question of stay of the present proceeding also does not arise at this stage. The learned Court below had passed the order discussing in detailed about the provision of Section 210 Cr.PC and accordingly in the below mentioned para it has been observed that :- "On the other hand it is also clear that this instant case is u/s 138 NI Act and the other case which investigation is pending is for offence u/s 406/408/420 IPC. Nature of offences are different. Cause of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
