In The Supreme Court of Bangladesh

  High Court Division

  (Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction)

PRESENT:

         MR. JUSTICE ABU TAHER MD. SAIFUR RAHMAN

AND

              MR. JUSTICE KHANDAKER DILIRUZZAMAN

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 16240 OF 2023

Md. Abdus Salam.........….…...Complainant petitioner 

   -Versus-

The State and others….….....Opposite parties

Mr. Md. Sajjadur Rahman with

Ms. Sarker Samema Sultana, Advocates

.........For the complainant petitioner Mr. A.S.M.M. Kabir Khan, Advocate

…For the opposite party Nos. 2-4

Mr. Imran Ahmed Bhuiyan, DAG with

Mr. Mehadi Hasan (Milon), AAG and

Ms. Aleya Khandker, AAG

........For the state

Heard on: 01.08.2023, 02.08.2023 and 16.08.2023

Judgment on: The 16th of August, 2023 ABU TAHER MD. SAIFUR RAHMAN, J.

This Rule was issued on an application filed by the accused petitioner under section 561A of the Code of Criminal  Procedure,  1898  calling  upon  the  opposite parties to show cause as to why the impugned judgment and  order  dated  02.11.2022  passed  by  the  learned Sessions Judge, Chapainawabganj in Criminal Revision No. 113 of 2022, arising out of C.R. Case No. 231 of 2021 (Nababganj) under sections 420/406 of the Penal Code, 1860 now pending in the Court of learned Senior

Judicial  Magistrate,  1st  Court,  Chapainawabganj rejecting the order of framing charge dated 26.05.2022

passed  by  the  learned  Senior  Judicial  Magistrate,  1st Court, Chapainawabganj should not be quashed and/or such other or further order or orders passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

For disposal of the Rule, the relevant facts may briefly be stated as follows:

That  the  petitioner  as  complainant  filed  a  C.R. Case No. 231 of 2021 against the opposite party Nos. 2 to  4  under  sections  420/406/34  of  the  Penal  Code alleging  inter  alia  that  during  the  joint  business,  the complainant petitioner issued 32 (thirty-two) cheques in favour of the accuseds opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 on condition that they will return the aforesaid cheques to the complainant within 2 (two) months after complete their  internal  audit.  However,  subsequently,  they  (the accused persons) did not return the aforesaid cheques to the  complainant.  Regarding  the  aforesaid  matter,  the complainant  petitioner  made  a  G.D.  Entry  No.  1290 dated  28.06.2016  to  the  police  station  against  them. Later on, a salish was held between the parties, and as per decision of the said salish, the complainant petitioner paid Tk. 1,20,000/- (Taka One lac and Twenty thousand) to  the  accuseds  opposite  party  Nos.  2  to  4  but  even though they did not return the aforesaid cheques to the complainant, rather they filed a C.R. Case No. 145 of 2021  against  the complainant  petitioner  under  section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. Hence, the aforesaid case was filed against the accuseds opposite party No. 2 to 4 under sections 420/406/34 of the Penal Code. Thereafter, the accuseds opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 duly appeared before the Court below and obtained bail. Later on at the time of the framing charge, the accuseds opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 filed an application under section  241A  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  for discharge  which  was  rejected  vide  its  order  dated 26.05.2022  and  thereby  charge  was  framed  against accuseds  opposite  party  Nos.  2  to  4  under  sections 406/420  of  the  Penal  Code.  Being  aggrieved,  the accuseds opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 preferred a Criminal Revision No. 113 of 2022 before the Sessions Judge, Chapainawabganj  which  was  allowed  vide  its  order dated  02.11.2022  and  thereby  set  aside  the  order  of framing charge against the accuseds opposite party Nos. 2  to  4  dated  26.05.2022  passed  by  Senior  Judicial

Magistrate,  1st  Court,  Chapainawabganj.  Being aggrieved, the complainant as petitioner preferred this application before this Court under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the aforesaid impugned judgment and order dated 02.11.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No. 113 of 2022 and obtained the instant Rule and stay.

Mr. Md. Sajjadur Rahman, the learned Advocate for  the  complainant  petitioner  submits  that  there  is  a specific allegation against the accuseds opposite party Nos.  2  to  4  but  the  learned  Sessions  Judge  without considering the materials on record passed the impugned judgment  and  order  dated  02.11.2022  in  Criminal Revision No. 113 of 2022 which is liable to be set aside.

Mr. A.S.M.M. Kabir Khan, the learned Advocate for the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 submits that the nature of the allegation as stated in the petition of the complaint is absolutely civil in nature which does not constitute any criminal offence and as such the learned Sessions Judge rightly passed the impugned order which does not call for any interference by this Court.

Heard the submissions of the learned Advocates of both sides and perused the materials on records thoroughly.

On perusal of the petition of complaint, it transpires that  the  aforesaid  dispute  was  arising  from  the  business transaction which is civil in nature and does not constitute any criminal offence. Our this view gets support from the decision  as  reported  in  7  BLT  (AD)  page-227,  45  DLR (AD)-1993, page-27 and 56 DLR-2000, page-169 but the trial  Court  below  failed  to  appreciate  the  aforesaid  legal aspects  as  involved  in  the  instant  case  and  thereby committed an error of law. In such view of the aforesaid legal position, the Revisional Court rightly rejected the order of framing charge against the accuseds opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 vide its judgment and order dated 02.11.2022 which does not call for any interference by this Court under the jurisdiction  of  section  561A  of  the  Code  of  Criminal Procedure.

As a result, the Rule is discharged.

The proceeding of C.R. Case No. 231 of 2021 under sections 420/406 of the Penal Code, 1860 now pending in the  Court  of  Senior  Judicial  Magistrate,  1st  Court, Chapainawabganj is hereby quashed.

Communicate this judgment and order at once.

Khandaker Diliruzzaman, J:

I agree