Seeking your opinion in this case
trilok manot
(Querist) 07 August 2014
This query is : Resolved
Most Respectfully Sheweth :-
That the present complainant is a peace loving and law abiding citizen of India and is aged about 38 years. The complainant is a businessman by profession and is his residing at 14, Bentinck Street, 5th Floor, Kolkata- 700001 under the jurisdiction of Hare Street Police Station.
The present accused is running a business under the name and style of “Salasar Tradeline Company” which is located at 89, N.S. Road, 3rd Floor, Kolkata- 700001. The present accused is known to the complainant for a considerable period of time through a close friend namely, Trilok Kumar Manot and due to this the accused person shared a good relationship with the complainant for several years.
Owing to the fact that the accused was known to the complainant for several years and shared a good relationship with the complainant and taking advantage of the same, the accused approached the complainant/ petitioner for a loan of Rs 26, 00, 000/- (Twenty Six Lakhs Only) in the month of April, 2014. The accused represented to the complainant/ petitioner that he was passing through a financial crunch and projected that he had an urgent requirement for a sum of Rs. 26, 00, 000/- (Twenty Six Lakhs).
The accused person while asking for the loan amount represented and assured the complainant/ petitioner that he would require the loan for a short period of time and would repay the loan given by the complainant within 31.05.2014. He further assured that there would be no delay in making the repayment and was only taking the loan as his financial position had deteriorated.
Believing such representation made by the accused person to be genuine and sacrosanct one, the complainant decided to part with a sum of Rs. 26, 00, 000/- (Twenty Six Lakhs) by way of loan on the assurance that such sum would be paid back to the complainant within 31.05.2014.
Thereafter, in the month of April, 2014 the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 26, 00, 000/- (Twenty Six Lakhs) to the accused person under the assurance that such sum would be repaid by 31.05.2014. At the time of giving such loan to the accused person, my friend Trilok Kumar Manot was also present. In his presence I paid the accused person a sum of Rs. 26, 00, 000/- (Twenty Six Lakhs) in cash to the accused person. It is pertinent to mention herein that the said Trilok Kumar Manot is the brother-in-law of the accused person.
At the time of parting with the loan amount of Rs. 26, 00, 000/- (Twenty Six Lakhs) and in the presence of Trilok Kumar Manot, the accused person acknowledged receiving such sum in cash and provided a hand written receipt with his signature. The accused also promised that the sum would be paid within the designated time period and further assured that there would be no default in making the repayment of loan.
A photocopy of the hand written acknowledgment receipt is annexed hereto and marked as “P/1.”
That the complainant states that on or about in the middle of April, 2014, the accused person once again approached the complainant for a further loan of Rs. 4, 00, 000/- (Four Lakhs Only) as he was in some severe bottleneck situation. He further represented that he would pay back the total loan amount in the designated time period and it was agreed that the accused person would hand over a post dated account payee cheque amounting to Rs, 30, 00, 000/- (Thirty Lakhs Only) in favour of the complainant/ petitioner and the same which would be redeemable on or after 31.05.2014.
After making such further payment of Rs. 4, 00, 000/- (Four Lakhs Only), the accused person in lieu of his loan gave a cheque of Rs. 30, 00, 000/- (Thirty Lakhs Only) drawn on Punjab National Bank, Sutapatty, Kolkata- 700007 being cheque no. 428266 dated 19.04.2014. It was also agreed between the parties that the said cheque would be encashed/ cleared on or after 31.05.2014.
After the expiry of the loan period, the complainant duly presented the cheque for encashment at Punjab National Bank, Sutapatty, Kolkata, within its validity period. Much to the complainant’s astonishment the cheque which was presented within its validity period returned dishonoured on 14.06.2014 with the remark “Account Closed.”
A photocopy of the Cheque Return Memo dated 14.06.2014 is annexed hereto and marked as “P/2.”
After the dishonour of the said cheque the complainant requested the accused person to keep his promise by paying the loaned amount of Rs. 30, 00, 000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only). Thereafter, the complainant started pursuing the matter.
After speaking to the accused person the complainant was extremely surprised to learn that the accused person had no intention to pay back the loaned amount. When the complainant spoke to the accused person, he blatantly told the complainant that he would not pay back the loaned amount and had no intention to repay it in the near future. The accused person also threatened the complainant to not deposit the aforesaid cheque and told the complainant that he was free to take any action against him.
That the complainant states that it is crystal clear through the acts of the accused person that from the very inception the abovementioned accused person had the intention to cheat the complainant of the loan amount given and had no intent to pay back the loaned amount of Rs. 30, 00, 000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only). Furthermore, the accused person had maliciously represented to the complainant that he was in a financial crunch in order to extract the sum of money from the complainant.
That the accused person for the aforesaid illegal acts has committed offences punishable under sections 406/ 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
That the incident was intimated to the Officer-In-Charge of Hare Street Police Station vide complaint letter dated 02/ 08/ 2014 and the same was received by them on 02/08/2014. However, the Officer-In-Charge had not taken any action over the aforesaid complaint and they have advised the complainant company to take recourse before your Honour’s Court.
Photocopy of such letter is annexed hereto and marked as annexure “P/3.”
That the incident was intimated to the Deputy Commissioner, Central Division vide complaint letter dated 04.08.2014 and the same was received by them on 04.08.2014. However, the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Central Division had not taken any action over the aforesaid complaint and they have advised the complainant company to take recourse before your Honour’s Court.
Photocopy of such letter is annexed hereto and marked as annexure “P/4”.
That the offence committed by the accused persons is well within the jurisdiction of the Learned Court and as the Police Authorities did not start any case the complainant company has no other option than to seek recourse before the Learned Court for treating this instant petition under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (and issuing process against the accused persons.
That the Learned Court has sufficient powers to allow this application under section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and direct the concerned Officer-in-Charge, Hare Street Police Station to treat this instant petition of complaint as a First Information Report.
That this application is made bonafide and for the ends of justice.
In the above stated facts and circumstances it is prayed before Your Honour to pass an order allowing the application under section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and direct the concerned Officer-in-Charge, Hare Street Police Station to treat this instant petition of complaint as First Information Report and /or any other order/orders as Your Honour may deem fit and proper for the ends of justice.
And for this act of kindness your petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray.
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 07 August 2014
You seem to have posted a petition filed in court.
What do you want to know?
The Police is going to do nothing unless you take a step.
First you have to file a cheque bouncing case, then case of cheating and then a summary suit.
Park Street PS is well known for police inaction.
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 07 August 2014
WHAT DO YOU WANT NOW??
ajay sethi
(Expert) 07 August 2014
you want magistrate to take action under section 156(3) to direct cops to investigate and submit its report
Guest
(Expert) 07 August 2014
Please post the background of the problem in brief with a specific query, not the lengthy petition.
seshadri dubey
(Expert) 07 August 2014
You should have sent him a lawyers notice n start a complaint case u/s -138 of N I Act by complying the procedure of 138(b), u have nibbed the bud of case at its starting, strange
K.K.Ganguly
(Expert) 07 August 2014
1. Do you want to know whether your course of action is right or not?
2. Yes, you have taken right action.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 09 August 2014
The query may be posted in a brief manner so that the experts will be able to promptly respond to your query.
Biswanath Roy
(Expert) 11 August 2014
You followed right action by filing a petition u/s. 156(3) Cr.PC before the Magistrate but simultaneously and concurrently you shall have to file another two cases namely criminal case u/s.138 N.I. Act and a civil summery suit for recovery of your money. Be it noted that there is no specific time limit to investigate the offence u/s.156(3) Cr.PC and to report the same before the Magistrate concerned.
