9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p firm of Sri Ajay Haldia [petitioner no. 2] having its registered office at 96D, Karaya Road, P.S. Karaya, Kolkata. The petitioner no. 1 firm is engaged in business as a manufacturer and supplier of engineering goods and processing machinery for tea, sesame, nuts, grains industries. The respondent no. 2 company namely M/s. Brahmaputra Biochem Private Limited [hereinafter referred to as BBPL] had entered into a business relationship with the petitioner no. 1 and they also entered into an agreement/contract accordingly. By the said agreement the respondent company was also benefitted. But, respondent no. 2 company had always engaged in various illegal ways to harm the petitioners and also threatened the petitioner no. 2 in this regard. However, in pursuant to the trade agreement, the petitioners' company was supplying various materials but, no payment was made towards purchase of grains against the purchase orders by the respondent. Some purchase orders are relevant for the purpose of adjudication of this petition, which were placed on 15.06.2015 by BBPL [respondent] clearly mentions the dealings directly with the suppliers and traders and as such involvement of the petitioners was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent no. 2 company, namely, one Arjun Arora came to Kolkata and took the petitioner no. 2 to his office where he was also accompanied by some unidentified persons who were subsequently disclosed their identity as Police Officers from CID Department wherein the petitioner no. 2 was served with the photocopies of the arrest memo, seizure list and also provided a notice u/s 50 and 41A of Cr.PC and accordingly it is stated that he would be arrested and would be taken to Guwahati for immediate custody. The petitioner no. 2 was then asked to put his signature on some documents including some cheques which is the subject matter of the instant petition and also asked him to transfer money as desired by them although, there was no liability on the accused-persons to pay any money to the complainant as aforesaid. After continuous threatening the petitioner no. 2 had no alternative and out of fear he signed in some papers of proprietorship without his consent and also forced to put sign on some cheques and thus they extorted money from the petitioner no. 2 and also made him bound to put signature on the cheques and also forced him to handed over Rs. 20 lacs through RTGS and thus the said c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ritten objection against the petition filed u/s 294 Cr.PC did not dispute the contents made in the petition. However, all facts including the judicial orders were strangely denied by the respondent no. 2 in their written objection. 9. In the above circumstances, the petitioners filed an application u/s 210 Cr.PC before the learned Trial Court below on 12.10.2018 praying to call for a police report from the CID (Assam) regarding the status of the case of CID (Assam) P.S. Case No. 03/2017 and also prayed to stay the proceedings of the criminal complaint till disposal of the Criminal Petition No. 828/2017 pending before this Court. However, the learned Trial Court below without properly and meticulously considering the facts and circumstances of this case, rejected the said application on 12.10.2018. 10. On being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Trial Court below dated 12.10.2018 by rejecting the petition filed u/s 294 Cr.PC., the petitioners preferred the present criminal petition. 11. It is further submitted by Mr. Gooptu that the learned Trial Court below failed to appreciate the facts and the subject matter with regard to the transactions a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the time of making the promise. In this context he also relied on the decision passed by this Court, which was reiterated in 2022 4 GLR 573 [Ajay Haldia v. State of Assam and Another] and basically relied on para 28 of the said judgment which reads as under:- "In Hridaya Rangan Pd. Verma and Others vs. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168, it has been held that to hold a person guilty of cheating is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. From his mere failure to keep up promise subsequently such a culpable intention right at the beginning that is when he made the promise cannot be presumed." 15. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel submitted in this regard that the learned Trial Court below had rightly rejected the prayer made by petitioner u/s 210 Cr.PC and made a detailed discussion while rejecting the prayer made by the petitioner u/s 210 Cr.PC. It is submitted by this Court that the cases are two different cases, one relates to the dishonour of cheque which is registered u/s 138 of the N.I. Act and the other case was registered only u/s 420/406 IPC and that both the cases cannot be considered as the case un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the instant case. From the record it is seen that a petition for quashing was also filed by the petitioners praying for quashing of the CID (Assam) P.S. Case No. 03/2017 and accordingly the further proceeding was also stayed by this Court vide order dated 14.11.2018 and which was registered as Criminal Petition No. 828/2017 was subsequently allowed by quashing the CID Case No. 03/2017. During pendency of the CID case, the complaint case u/s 138 of the N.I. Act was filed alleging the dishonour of cheque amounting to Rs. 81 lacs. But, from the perusal of the records and the annexures filed along with the petition, it is seen that the subject matter of both the cases cannot be considered as same or similar one to pass any order to stay the proceedings by calling any police 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. Though it is alleged that the petitioner had to put his signature on tho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
