Page 1 of 20

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:-

HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS.

CRR 698 OF 2023

PHARMA CORP INC LTD. AND ORS.

VERSUS

STATE OF WEST BENGAL

For the Petitioners : Ms. Ujjaini Chatterjee,Adv.

Ms. Garima Raijada, Adv.

For the Opposite

Party : Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee, Adv.

Ms. Sagnika Banerjee, Adv.

Mr. Koustav Bhattacharya, Adv.

Last heard on : 30.03.2026

Judgement on : 15.06.2026

Uploaded on : 15.06.2026

CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J.: -

1. This Revisional Application has been filed under Section 397, 401 read with

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for quashing of

private complaint and proceedings being case no. CS/51484 of 2022 pending

before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th C ourt, Calcutta under

Section 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Page 2 of 20

Case of the petitioner

2. The petitioner is a pharmaceutical company having its office at Indore, Madhya

Pradesh and Opposite Party is a company engaged in distributorship of

pharmaceutical products having its office at Howrah, West Bengal. It is the

case of the petitioner that around March-April 2019, the opposite party No. 2

company approached the petitioner company based in Indore for the

distribution of medicines being manufactured by the petitioner company in the

state of West Bengal and it was decided that Opposite Party no. 2 will be one

of the petitioner distributer in Kolkata . The petitioners assured that 75 days of

credit period shall be granted to them from the date of goods booking date as

per agreement entered in the form of terms and conditions between the

parties. The Opposite party no. 2 during the meeting also submitted the

customer information Form provided by the petitioner company for its

distributor/customers. After execution of such agreement, the Opposite party

no.2 started placing orders for medicines and through various order slip

placed for order for purchase of medicines being marketed by the petitioner

company and the petitioner company supplied the first consignment of goods

to the Opposite Party no. 2, and accordingly an invoice was raised on

15.4.2019 in favour of Opposite Party no. 2. It is the further case of the

petitioner that the commercial transaction between the parties continued

between April 19 to October 2019, and during the aforesaid period, multiple

orders were placed by the Opposite Party no. 2 for medical goods around ₹1,

39, 40, 454/- and against the order, petitioner company raised various

invoices and supply the goods as per order. During this period starting from

Page 3 of 20

April 20 19, to October 2019, as against the total payment of ₹1, 39, 40, 454/-

honoured an amount of ₹81,70,599, after deduction of credit note and

account raised by the petitioner company, a total sum of ₹47, 33, 582 was

outstanding against the good sold.

3. The Opposite Party no. 2, even after repeated reminders failed to honour

payment of such some against the goods supply to them and the petitioner

company on 17.12.2019, mailed the O pposite Party no. 2 for paying such

outstanding payment. The Opposite Party no.2 received the said mail raised

dispute wide their email dated 20.12.2019 regarding settlement of the

outstanding due after deduction of the amount of purchase return for some

unsold goods of ₹10, 82, 149/-. The present petitioner immediately reverted

back after receiving the said email clarifying that the goods sold to the opposite

party no.2 are as per the order placed are non-returnable basis and therefore

the opposite party no.2 is not in a position to accept the same and further

directed them to honour the outstanding payment, otherwise the petitioner

shall be forced to deposit the security cheque. After that again, further

exchange of emails took place between the parties and the opposite party no.2

did not honour the undisputed outstanding amount of ₹37,64, 301/- and the

petitioner company presented the cheque advanced by the Opposite Party no.

2 as security for a sum of ₹37, 64, 301 in Kotak Mahindra Private Limited at

Indore on 21.1.2020. But to their utter surprise, the said cheque was

dishonoured with remark as payment stopped by drawer on 23.1.2020. Legal

notice was sent by the petitioner company on 9.2.2020 to initiate proceeding

under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 as well as to log a

complaint under Section 420 of the Indian penal code, 1860 if the amount is

Page 4 of 20

not cleared within 15 days. A proceeding was also instituted subsequently

under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act before the learned District and

Session Court, Indore on 23.3.2020 and in the meantime, due to widespread

COVID-19 Government declared lockdown on from 25.3.2020 and the

summons only be served upon the opposite party no.2 in the complaint case

on 19.5.2022. It is therefore the case that amidst pending complaint under

Section 138 of NI Act against the Opposite Party no. 2, the email conversation

continued in respect of outstanding dues and on 2.4.2020. It was informed

that the outstanding amount is lying on the sale of PCI product has to be

recovered by the petitioner company. It was further stated that if Petitioner

Company assured such recovery on behalf of the respondent, then the

Opposite Party no.2 will immediately pay a sum of ₹10 lakhs against the

outstanding payment. After that the opposite party n o.2 vide email

correspondence on 7.4.2020 alleged that as currently, the respondent being

not their distributor have no responsibility to recover the amount outstanding

in the market and further deposited a sum of ₹25 lakhs against the

outstanding total payment of ₹37, 64, 301 . Thereafter the Opposite Party no. 2

sent legal notice on 12.10.2020 after almost 8 months of receipt of legal notice

by petitioner Company on 9.2.2020. It is the case of the petitioner that the

Opposite Party no. 2 concealing the commercial transaction between the

parties and the outstanding payment and the complaint filed under Section

138 NI Act against them filed by the present petitioner lodged the complaint

with false and frivolous allegations under Section 406/420 read with 120 B of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Magistrate took cognizance and issued

Page 5 of 20

process and hence the petitioner has filed this revisional application to quash

the entire proceeding.

Case of the opposite party

4. The complaint has been filed by opposite party no.2 against the petitioner

company under Section 406/420/383/506 of the Indian Penal C ode alleging

that in the month of October, 2020, the accused company through its

Directors approached and introduced themselves to the complainant to start a

business transaction and to distribute the medicin e products. As per

assurance of the said accused and with the assurance made by th em to

maintain breach of trust, they entered into a business relationship, but a letter

was received by the accused company dated 9.2.2020 in Hindi against which

reply was given on 21.2.2020. After getting part payment of ₹25 lakhs the

accused person neither made any effort to resolve dispute raised in the same

business and thereby failed keep their promise. The accused persons were

being informed through various telephonic reminders and emails to settle the

disputes like bad manufactured product being returned after taking account of

good product, but the accused did not give any heed on the same. Opposite

Party no. 2 /complainant companies sent a legal notice on 12.10.2022, the

accused persons for disputes made by the accused persons for threaten ing

and demanding the amount of ₹37,64,301/- illegally from complainant

company and also accepting an amount of 25 lakhs which was transferred on

7.4.2020.

5. By order dated 21.6.2022, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta

after perusal of the complainant as well as deposition of the complainant

Page 6 of 20

witnesses found prima facie case under Section 406 , 420, 120 B of IPC and

cognizance was taken and process under Section 204 of Cr.P.C was issued

against which this proceeding has been initiated by the petitioner.

Submissions

6. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petition challenged the order

taking cognizance dated 21 June 2022, b y the learned 10th Metropolitan

Magistrate by specifically recording that ‘an enquiry under Section 202 of

Cr.P.C is not necessary’ relying upon the case of Vijay Dhanuka and others

versus Nazima Mamtaz and others

1

, but such order is palpable incorrect in

view of settled proposition of law that when the accused persons reside

outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court, an enquiry must be held before

proceeding to take cognizance of the matter. In this case, the petitioner resides

in Indore, which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate

and thus issuance of process without conducting an enquiry/investigation in

terms of Section 202 is impermissible. It is further argued that the principal

has been laid down explicitly in the case of Vijay Dhanuka and others

versus Najima Mamtaz and others (supra).

7. The further point raised is maintainability of the charges under section 405

and Section 420 in view of the settled principle of law that both this allegations

cannot coexist in the same complaint. In this regard relied upon the decision

of Arshad Neyaz Khan versus State of Jharkhand and another

2

, para 19

and 21.That apart, it is clear from the complaint made in the written

1

(2014) 14 SCC 638

2

2025 SCC OnLine SC 2058

Page 7 of 20

complaint that admittedly a dispute was there ove r bad manufactured

products and recovery of market outstanding. The complaint refers to a legal

notice dated 7.4.2020 issued by the complainant himself, which itself reveals

that complainant paid ₹25 lakhs as part payment of its own outstanding dues

towards the petitioner, which clearly manifest that there is no entrustment of

any property by the complainant. The payment was made by the complainant

in lieu of its own dues to the accused persons. Accepting a few bald and

generic allegations, the complaint is bereft of any particulars stating that there

was any inducement or fraudulent representation at the very inception on the

part of the accused person, as a result whereof the complainant was induced

to part with any property. It is a clear case of disputes emanating from alleged

breach of performance of obligations under a contract between the parties for

which civil remedy lies. Relied upon the decisions reported in Satishchandra

Ratanlal Shah versus State of Gujarat and Another

3

, para 11–16,

Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and others versus S tate of Bihar and

other

4

, para 10–17 and Vijay Kumar Ghai and others versus state of

West Bengal and others

5

, para 27–40. It is the further point raised by the

learned advocate that it is the complainant who is in breach of contract and in

order to save himself from legal prosecution. To honour contractual payment,

the present case has been instituted and the present proceeding is vexatious

in nature.

8. The instant proceedings have been instituted with mala fide intention and

therefore the complaint is liable to be quashed on account being a complete

3

(2019) 9 SCC 148

4

(2000) 4 SCC 168

5

(2022) 7 SSC 124

Page 8 of 20

abuse of the process of the court. Reliance is put in the decision of Anukul

Singh versus state of Uttar Pradesh and another

6

. Another judgement has

been relied upon Sunil Sharma versus M/S Hero Fincorp Limited and

another

7

when it was discussed, what would amount to criminal breach of

trust and held that it does not admit any doubt that the term entrusted in

Section 405 IPC is crucial and governance both with property immediately

following it as well as with any dominion over property occurring thereafter.

Creation of trust means the person to whom the property is hundred over does

not become its beneficial owner. Even when he is not using it according to the

given directions at the time of entrustment of the property.

Contentions on behalf of the Opposite Party no. 2

9. Per Contra the learned advocate representing the Opposite Party no.2 has

vehemently submitted that the revision application preferred by the petitioner

is a calculated and misconceived attempt to tha t a legitimate criminal

prosecution instituted by the Opposite Party, no. 2 at its nascent stage and to

secure an unwarranted immunity from the due process of law. The factual

matrix of the case equivocally disclose a deliberate and a pre-meditate scheme

of deception from the very inception, dishonest, inducement, and

misappropriation, thereby squarely attracting the offences under Section

420/406/120 B of the Indian Penal Code. With regard to the issue raised by

the Opposite Party no. 2, whether a prima facie place under S ection

420/406/120 B is made out against the petitioners. It is argued that the

accused petitioners induced the complainant to part with substantial sum of

6

2025 SCC OnLine SC 2060

7

2025 INSC 1001

Page 9 of 20

money on the false assurance of supplying specific pharmaceutical products of

assured quality, however, neither such medicines were supplied in terms of

the representation nor the money returned. On the contrary, the complainant

supplied with goods which were different and inferior to what was promised,

thereby demonstrating the entire transaction as sham from the very inception.

The Opposite Party no. 2, further after being assured entrusted substantial

amount of money to the accused persons for the specific purpo se of

procurement and supply of medicine of assured quality which clearly reflected

from the financial transactions and documents and from the complaints. The

petitioners failed to utilise the funds for the intended purpose and neither

supplied the agreed medicines nor maintain the quality assured, rather they

supplied inferior goods thereby violated the basis of entrustment. Furthermore

the amount paid ₹25 lakhs has not been returned to the complainant. It

clearly constitutes dishonest, misappropriation and conversion of interested

property in violation of terms of the agreement and attracts the offence under

Section 406 IPC. All the accused persons acted in tandem in inducing the

Opposite Party no. 2/complainant making false representations, receiving

money and failing to honour their commitment and therefore they were acting

pursuant to a criminal conspiracy attracts Section 120B IPC. It is strenuously

argued that the allegations in the complaint are not vague or general in true,

but are supported by cogent materials, including invoices, financial records,

correspondence, and legal notices. So far the offence under Section 420 IPC is

concerned it is evident that there was deception at the very inception,

dishonest inducement to part with money and consequent wrongful loss to the

complainant. It is denied that the dispute is civil in nature and argued that it

Page 10 of 20

is well settled that the existence of a civil remedy does not bar criminal

prosecution where the allegations disclose fraudulent or dishonest intention

from the inception. He relied upon the decision Rocky versus State of

Telangana and another

8

. The learned Advocate further relied upon the

decisions Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani versus State of Uttar Pradesh and

Another

9

and the principles laid down in State of Haryana & Ors. versus

Bhajanlal & Ors.

10

, and prayed for dismissal of the present revisional

application.

Analysis

10. Heard the submissions of both the learned counsels and perused the

materials on record. The genesis of the present revisional application pertains

to a dispute arose between the parties who entered into a commercial

transaction and executed an agreement with certain terms and conditions.

Whether the approach was made on b ehalf of the petitioner company through

its directors to the complainant weather the opposite party no.2 approached

the petitioner company for distribution of medicine manufactured by t he

petitioner company, the fact remains that after having a meeting and

discussions, they had entered into an agreement and hence they had a

business relationship. Complaint lodged by the O.P. No.2 demonstrate that

with the assurance given by the petitioner company, the complainant

entrusted the petitioner company by glossy and colourful representations to

start a business transaction but later on, they shocked to receive a letter dated

8

2025 SCC OnLine SC 2713

9

2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947

10

1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

Page 11 of 20

9.2.2020 and they could not understand the content written in Hindi language

sent a reply on 21.2.2020 deny the dispute raised by the petitioner company.

In the revisional application, the terms and conditions entered between the

parties in terms of the meeting held on 13 April 2019 at Indore is annexed the

execution of which has not been denied by the O.P. NO.2. The opposite party

no.2 did not divulge the content of the letter dated 9.2.2020 in his written

complaint, the reply to which was given denying a dispute and the petitioner

disclosed sending such notice as there was an outstanding due of

₹47,33,582/-against the goods supplied to the Opposite Party 2 . The

petitioner has specified about the transaction held between the parties and the

petitioner company supplied the goods and the invoice was generated on

15.4.2019 in favour of Opposite Party no. 2 The documents annexed which are

the summons issued and by the Judicial Magistrate, first class, Indore,

Madhya Pradesh under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act prima facie

established that regarding their terms and condition and non-payment of

certain amount to the petitioner company a proceeding under Section 138

under Negotiable Instrument Act has been initiated but learned advocate in

courts of argument did not deal with such contention. It is admitted on their

behalf that the goods which was delivered were of inferior quality and it was

mutually agreed between the complainant and the accused persons that in

default of any amicable settlement, the complainant will reserve the right to

recall all the terms and conditions agreed before. It is also admitted that part

payment of ₹25 lakhs has been received by the present petitioner company on

7.4.2020 and the dispute arose over quality of product was not settled. The

legal notice sent on 12.10.2020 for demanding ₹37,64,301 by Petitioner

Page 12 of 20

Company. After giving a cursury glance to the said notice dated 12.10.2020 it

appears that certain medicines were returned because of manufacturing defect

and admitted about receiving the letter dated 9.2.2020 and also giving reply to

the same, but nothing has been mention regarding the proceeding pending

against the present Opposite Party no. 2, under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instrument Act.

11. In the case of Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah (supra) the distinction

between criminal breach of trust and cheating were discussed, and it was

held-

“The law clearly recognises a difference between

simple payment/investment of money and

entrustment of money or property. A mere breach of a

promise, agreement or contract does not, ipso facto,

constitute offence of criminal breach of trust contained

in Section 405 IPC without there being clear case of

entrustment.”

In this case, the dispute arose out of a loan transaction between the parties

and it was found that the respondent knew the applicant and attendant

circumstances before lending the loan. Further, it was admitted fact that in

order to recover such amount the respondent number two instituted a

summary civil suit which was pending for adjudication. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court held that:-

“there is nothing either in the complaint or in any

material before us, pointing to the fact that any

property was entrusted to the appellant at all which

he dishonestly converted for his own use so as to

Page 13 of 20

satisfy the ingredients of Section 405 punishable

under Section 406 IPC”.

Accordingly, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the learned M agistrate

committed a serious error in issuing process against the appellant end for the

said offence.

12. Similarly, in the case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and others

(supra) definition of cheating and breach of contract contemplates two

separate classes of acts viz, deception by fraudulent or dishonest inducement,

and deception by intentional, but not fraudulent or dishonest inducement. In

the second case, intentional deception must be shown to exist right from the

beginning of the transaction. The case of Vijay Kumar Ghai and others

(supra) the essential ingredients of cheating as discussed as follows-

“1) deception of any person

2) a) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person-

i) to deliver any property to any person; or

ii) to consent that any person shall retain any

property; or

b) intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do

anything which he would not do or omit if he were no so

deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to

cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind,

reputation, or property.”

It was further held that-

“34. Section 420 IPC is a serious form of cheating that

includes inducement (to lead or move someone to

Page 14 of 20

happen) in terms of delivery of property as well as

valuable securities. This section is also applicable to

matters where the destruction of the property is caused

by the way of cheating or inducement………

35. To establish the offence of cheating in inducing the

delivery of property, the ingredients need to be proved:

(i) The representation made by the person was false.

(ii) The accused had prior knowledge that the

representation he made was false.

(iii) The accused made false representation with

dishonest intention in order to deceive the person to

whom it was made.

(iv) The act where the accused induced the person to

deliver the property or to perform or to abstain from any

act which the person would have not done or had

otherwise committed.”

In that case, the order passed by the High Court was set aside whereby the

prayer to quash the proceeding was refused and held that:-

“In order to attract the ingredients of Section 406 and

420 IPC, it is imperative on the part of the

complainant to prima facie establish that there was

an intention on part of the petitioner and/or others to

cheat and/or to defraud the complainant right from

the inception. Furthermore, it has to be prima facie

established that due to such alleged act of cheating,

the complainant had suffered a wrongful loss and the

same had resulted in wrongful gain for the accused.

In absence of these elements, no proceeding is

permissible in the eye of law with regard to the

Page 15 of 20

commission of the offence punishable under Section

420 IPC.”

13. In the present case, it is evident that there was a business transaction and

mutual arrangement as well as certain terms and conditions were agreed upon

and as a consequence, transaction took place and an amount of ₹25 lakhs

received in lieu of which goods were transported, but the dispute arose over

settlement of outstanding dues as well as quality of product.

Therefore, in view of the above discussion made by the Supreme Court

regarding the required ingredients which are essential to constitute an offence

under Section 406 or 420 of IPC , it can be said that there was an entrustment

of property or goods or they were into the business transaction. It is evident

that there are proceeding pending against the present Opposite Party no. 2

filed by the present petitioner company under Section 138 of N egotiable

Instrument Act in connection of which the legal notice was received and reply

was given as well as received the summons of the proceedings but suppressing

that fact the complaint was lodged. Even the contents of the complaint even in

its entirety is considered, it would manifest the dispute between the parties

over breach of terms and conditions for which civil remedy is applicable and

no criminality can be found there at that time when the parties entered into

the business transaction. The complaint itself manifest that they had business

transaction since 2019 and sent legal notice in the month of October 2020

part payment made on April 2020 .The complainant company gave a reply on

21.2.20 in respect of a letter dated 9.2.2020 and the legal notice dated

12.10.2020 was sent by the complainant company and accepted part payment

2020 .The complaint was filed by the opposite party no.2 against the present

Page 16 of 20

petitioner company on 16.6.2022. So he waited from 2020 to 2022 to lodge the

complaint despite not receiving the return of goods or money as alleged and

also despite receiving the summons dated 9.2.2020.

14. In this backdrop, it is seen that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate 10th

Court, Calcutta on 21.6.2022 on the date of SA after examining the

complainant, who is an authorised representative in terms of a board

resolution under Section 200 of Cr.P.C observed that a prima facie case under

Section 406/420/120 B of IPC is established against the accused. It is evident

that this part payment as well as the relationship of the parties and their

business transaction was mentioned before the court, but the learned

Magistrate did not consider the legal position as discussed in the decision of

Vijay Dhanuka and others versus Najim a Mamtaz and others (Supra)

when it was found that petitioner company reside outside the territorial

jurisdiction of the court and a company functioning from Indore, Madhya

Pradesh. No order of enquiry was made before taking cognizance and

mechanically issued the process. In the case of Vijay Dhanuka and others

versus Najima Mamtaz and others (supra) the question arose for

consideration that in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond

the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction, whether it would be

mandatory to hold enquiry or the investigation as he thinks fit for the purpose

of deciding whether or not, there is sufficient ground for proceeding and

secondly, whether the Magistrate before issuing summons has held the

enquiry as mandated under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Section 200 of the code was

Page 17 of 20

discussed, which provides for examination of complainant on oath and

witnesses present and reads as follows.;

“200. Examination of complainant .- A Magistrate,

taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall

examine upon oath, the complainant and the

witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such

examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be

signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and

also by the magistrate;

Provided that when the complaint is made in writing,

the magistrate need not examine the complainant and

the witnesses-

a) if a public servant acting or purporting to act in

the discharge of his official duties or a court has

made the complaint; or

b) if the Magistrate make over the case for enquiry

or trial to another Magistrate under Section 192:

Provided further that if the Magistrate makes over the

case to another Magistrate under Section 192 after

examining the complainant and the witnesses, the

latter Magistrate need not re-examine them.”

The Supreme Court observed that:-

“Section 202 of the court, inter alia, contemplates

postponement of the issue of process “in a case where

the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in

which he exercises his jurisdiction” and thereafter to

either inquire into the case by himself or direct an

investigation to be made by a police officer or by such

other person as he thinks fit.”

Page 18 of 20

It was further observed that:-

“the words “and shall, in a case where the

accused is residing at a place beyond the area in

which he exercises his jurisdiction” were

inserted in Section 19 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure (Amendment) Act (Central Act 25 of

2005) w.e.f 23.6.2006.”

The said amendment was essential as false complaints are filed against

persons residing at far off places in order to harass them. The use of the

expression “shall” prima facie makes the inquiry or the investigation as the

case may, by the Magistrate mandatory. It was therefore held that the use of

expression “shall” and the background and purpose for which the amendment

has been brought there is no doubt that the enquiry or the investigation is

mandatory before the summons are issued against the accused living beyond

the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate.

15. Therefore, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, though referred the above

decision in his order sheet did not made any effort to enquire despite having

knowledge that the petitioner company being the accused is not residing

within his territorial jurisdiction. Before issuance of process, though he

examined the authorised representative of the complainant did not consider

before issuance of process that the allegation of 406 and 420 of IPC both will

be applicable against the petitioner.

16. The learned Advocate of the Opposite Party no. 2 relied upon the decision of

Hon’ble Supreme Court of Rocky versus state of Telangana and another

(Supra) wherein the Supreme Court discussed the decision of Pradeep Kumar

Page 19 of 20

Keswani (supra), where the Hon’ble Supreme Court outlined structured four

step test to access claims for quashing under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C where

it was held that-

“the material relied upon by the accused must be-

i) of sterling and impeccable quality,

ii) sufficient to completely negate the allegations,

iii) uncontested or incapable of legitimate

contest by the prosecution, and

iv) such that continuing the trial would amount to

abuse of process.

Unless all food tests are satisfied, quashing is

unwarranted.”

Supreme Court also referred the celebrated decision of Bhajanlal (Supra.)

and held that:-

“32. It is trite that the power under Section 482 of

the Cr.P.C is to be exercised sparingly, with

circumspection and only in exceptional situations,

Courts must avoid delving into disputed facts at the

pre-trial stage. Interference is warranted only where

the case clearly falls within the recognised

parameters for quashing.”

Conclusion

17. Thus on appreciation of entire facts and circumstances of the case, and the

law laid down the cumulative principles that emerges that where the materials

on record ex-facie demonstrate that the allegations in the FIR if they are taken

Page 20 of 20

at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute

any offence against the accused petitioners and is nothing but breach of terms

and conditions and no ingredients as discussed above in accordance with the

law to attract 406 or 420 of IPC are found and the order passed by the learned

magistrate completely dehors the principal laid down by the Hon’ble Apex

court and no complaints of Section 202 Cr.P.C while taking cognizance and

issuance of process and are sufficient to completely negate the allegations and

that continuing the trial would amount to abuse of process. Accordingly, the

entire proceeding is liable to be quashed.

18. Accordingly this CRR 698 of 2023 is here by allowed. The proceeding pending

before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th court, Calcutta under Section

406/420/120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all order passed therein

are hereby quashed.

19. All connected applications are hereby disposed of.

20. Urgent certified copy of the order, if applied for, be provided to the parties

upon observance of all necessary requirements.

[CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.]