Crl.Pet. 279/2015. Gauhati High Court

Case Number:Crl.Pet. 279/2015
Judgement Date:May 24, 2020
Court:Gauhati High Court

Criminal Revisions for quashing of criminal proceeding





  1. Anil Todi @ Anil Kumar Todi,

    Son of Sri Niranjan Lal Todi, Resident of No. 2, Queens Park, Kolkata – 700019.

  2. Pranab Kumar Sarkar,

    Son of Late Probhat Kumar Sarkar, Resident of 5 Clive House, Strand Road, Kolkata – 700001.

    – VERSUS –

  3. The State of Assam.

  4. Sri Pabitra Kumar Hira @ Pabitra Hira, Son of Late Maneswar Hira,

    Resident of Ward No. 10, Bhebarghat,

    P.O. & P.S. Mangaldai, Dist. Assam.

    ----- Opposite parties.

    B E f O R E


    Advocate for the petitioner : Mr. D Das, Sr. Advocate.

    Mr. H Nath, Advocate.

    Advocate for O.P No. 1 : Ms. S Jahan, Addl. P.P.

    Advocate for O.P No. 2 : Mr. Dilip Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate

    Date of hearing : 22nd of May, 2017.

    Date of Judgment & Order : 24th of May, 2017 .


    This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the orders dated 30-05-2014 and 29-01-2015, passed in CR 243C/2014, by

    Crl. Pet. No. 279 of 2015 Page 1 of 11

    ----- Petitioners .

    the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang, Mangaldai as well as the order dated 24-03-2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai, in Criminal Revision 16(D-1) 2015 and to quash the whole proceedings of CR Case No. 243C/2014.

  5. I have heard Mr. Diganta Das, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and Ms. S Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, for opposite party No. 1. Also heard Mr. Dilip Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the opposite party No. 2.

  6. The brief fact of the case is that on 22-04-2014, opposite party No. 2 herein, who is the proprietor of M/S D&N Enterprise & M/S Hira Feed Stores and dealer of power tillers and tractors, filed a complaint case being Complaint Case No. 243C of 2014, in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang, Mangaldai. The allegation made in the complaint is that on 17-03-2005, the complainant/opposite party No. 2 visited the common office of M/S Khazana Agricultural Equipments Ltd. and of Siva-Durga Finance & Investments Private Limited, Kolkata of the accused/petitioners for purchase of 40 numbers of Khazana S-1100 Power Tillers and made advance payment of Rs. 25 Lakhs. The said Power Tillers were to be delivered at Guwahati by Siva-Durga Finance & Investments Private Limited.

  7. Since the delivery was not made as agreed to, the complaint/opposite party No. 2 went to the office of the accused/petitioners at Kolkata, but found that the office did not exist. The complainant visited several times to Kolkata in search of the accused/petitioners, but to no avail.

  8. The complainant/opposite party No. 2 could collect the address and contact number of the accused/petitioner No. 1, though

    Crl. Pet. No. 279 of 2015 Page 2 of 11

    applications dated 21-01-2013 and 24-01-2013, under the Right to Information Act, to the Assam Plains Tribes Development Corporation Limited, where the accused/petitioner No. 1 supplied Power Tillers.

  9. On 04-03-2013, the accused/petitioner No. 1 made a call to the complainant and told him that he had some material proof, which would cause damage to the complainant/opposite party No. 2 and so he should pay him a sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs to avoid being exposed.

  10. Thereafter, accused/petitioner No. 2 came to Guwahati and made a call to him, which call the complainant/opposite party No. 2 did not receive. Thereafter, the accused/petitioner No. 2 visited the Plains Tribe Corporation, Guwahati and introduced himself as an employee of accused/petitioner No. 1. The accused/petitioner No. 2 informed the complainant/opposite party No. 2 to meet him at his place of stay at Guwahati, but the complainant/opposite party No. 2 sent his representative to his place of stay i.e., Hotal Mayur, and got a legal notice served on accused/petitioner No. 2, which he received with acknowledgement. The complainant/respondent No. 2 sent a legal notice to the accused/petitioner No. 1 also, but did not receive any response.

  11. Thereafter, the complainant/opposite party No. 2, by letter dated 10-04-2013, sought information of payment made in respect of Cheque No. 027676 out of the...

To continue reading