TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 489
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the presentation of petitioner with other carrying then a trade of auto car dealership of Maruti Suzuki, advanced a loan of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakh) in the form of inter-corporate deposit, on 18th March, 2020, to the petitioner being one of the Directors of Premier Car World Pvt. Ltd. for a period of 90 days bearing an interest of 10% per annum to overcome the stringent financial condition, faced by the borrower/Premier Car World Pvt. Ltd. Believing the assurance, the complainant creditor advanced such huge amount as inter-corporate deposit that the such amount taken as loan would be liquidated after the expiry of stipulated period of time. Such amount of inter-corporate deposit was encashed by the petitioner/accused, who also had issued a post dated cheque of Rs. 50 Lakh to the complainant creditor, as a collateral security. Since the petitioner being beneficiary of inter-corporate deposit deliberately declined to return the money, taken as loan after the lapse of stipulated period of time of 90 days, on being requested by the petitioner/accused person, the complainant creditor deposited the post dated cheque, given by loanee petitioner/accused person, to its bank....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....would not be made out so as to infer any fraudulent or dishonest inducement having been made by the petitioner, since beginning the transaction, pursuant to which the complainant/creditor had parted with the money in the form of inter-corporate deposit. Mr. Banerjee contended that the very fabrics of prosecution would reveal one and only that it was a simple case of civil dispute between the parties arising out of a loan transaction, for which the instant prosecution would not be permissible, and on the contrary, if the prosecution be allowed to be continued, the same would be an abuse of the process of the court. Reliance was further placed by Mr. Banerjee on a futher decision reported in (2005) 10 SCC 228 rendered in the case of Anil Mahajan Vs. Bhor Industries Ltd. & Anr. to contend that the grievance expressed in the complaint was nothing but a failure to discharge the obligation in consequence of a loan transaction, and the money parted with in the form of inter-corporate deposit was not a product of fraud or dishonest inducement on the part of the accused/petitioner. It was sought to be established by Mr. Banerjee that mere failure of a person to keep up a promise subsequen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gnificant amount against the inter-corporate deposit in favour of the complainant/creditor, but that would not exonerate the petitioner from his liability to face criminal prosecution under Sections 406, 420 I.P.C. According to Mr. Mukherjee the dishonest intention could be safely visualized by reason of siphoning of Rs. 50 Lakh from the bank account of petitioner to another account of S.B.I. maintained by petitioner. The instant prosecution, according to Mr. Mukherjee, is very much permissible irrespective of civil dispute, if there be any, together with an independent and separate prosecution, already instituted against the accused person under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Mr. Sourav Chatterjee representing de-facto complainant/creditor supporting the stand of Mr. Mukherjee, learned Public Prosecutor, High Court, Calcutta, strenuously contended that mere admission of liability to pay off the dues, taken as loan in the form of inter-corporate deposit of huge amount, and subsequent paying off interest on a couple of occasions would not stifle a legitimate prosecution, like the instant one, keeping in view that the dishonest intention at the beginning of the transaction was conspicuou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore court, and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, were actually of magnitude and naturally could not be seen in their true perspective without sufficient materials being collected. The case being at the investigation stage, according to Mr. Chatterjee, proposed quashment should be refused. Mr. Chatterjee made a further reference to a decision reported in (2005) 13 SCC 540 deilvered in the case of State of Orissa & Ors. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sahoo to highlight the scope and exercisability of extraordinary power available under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the relevant provisions, however, may be reproduced hereunderbelow: "10. In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." In the backdrop of such decision, Mr. Chatterjee's sincerest effort was to show that the Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be allowed to be an instrument handed over to accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death, and further such extraordinary power, according to Mr. Chatterjee, would be exercisable in the rarest of rare case. In the conspectus of the above, the underlying position is that an amount worth of Rs. 50 Lakh was advanced to petitioner/debtor beneficiary in the form of an inter-corporate deposit, upon certain agreed terms, simply to tied over the f....