Crl.Pet. 279/2015. Gauhati High Court
| Case Number | Crl.Pet. 279/2015 |
| Judgement Date | May 24, 2020 |
| Court | Gauhati High Court |
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
CRImINAl PETITION NO. 279 Of 2015
-
Anil Todi @ Anil Kumar Todi,
Son of Sri Niranjan Lal Todi, Resident of No. 2, Queens Park, Kolkata – 700019.
-
Pranab Kumar Sarkar,
Son of Late Probhat Kumar Sarkar, Resident of 5 Clive House, Strand Road, Kolkata – 700001.
– VERSUS –
-
The State of Assam.
-
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
HON’BlE mR. JUsTICE HITEsH KUmAR sARmA
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 .
JUDGMENT & ORDER
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
Request your trial