N Criminal Appeal No 172 of 1971
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 7 5 70 of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Revision No 370 of 1970
M M Kshatriaya and G section Chatterjee for the Appellant
A K Sen Mrs Leila Seth Mrs Anjana Sen and O P Khaitan for respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KHANNA J
This appeal by special leave is by the State of West Bengal against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court whereby the High Court in a revision petition under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure quashed the charges framed by the Presidency Magistrate against Raj Kumar Agarwalla respondent
The prosecution case is that on November 8 1967 Shankerlal representing himself to be a broker of foreign machinery parts went to Ram Avtar Prasad complainant and told him that he Shanker Lal could arrange for a transaction of sale of foreign goods which would result in good profit to the complainant
The complainant agreed to the proposal and wanted to see the seller of the foreign goods in question
On the following day Shanker Lal came with another man named Pandey and told Ram Avtar complainant that Pandey was an agent of Shri Hanuman Agency and would supply the foreign goods known as washer plates
Pandey showed Ram Avtar the samples of those washer plates
One of those samples was kept by Ram Avtar
A day after that Shanker Lal brought one Saheb Jaman Khan alongwith him to Ram Avtar and introduced Saheb Jaman Khan as agent of Ms Ashoke Trading Corporation of Indore
Ram Avtar then agreed to purchase 200 pieces of the washer plates at the rate of Rs 38 per piece
Formal order it was then agreed would be sent through Shanker Lal
279 On November 15 1967 Shanker Lal handed over the said formal order to Ram Avtar and stated that the goods would be supplied on the following day
Ram Avtar was also told that this transaction would fetch him a profit of Rs 3200 
On November 16 1967 Ram Avtar lodged a report with the police against Shanker Lal after his suspicion had been aroused
Later on that day Shanker Lal and Raj Kumar Agarwalla came to the shop of Ram Avtar with washer plates in a taxi
Price of the said goods was then demanded from Ram Avtar
Shanker Lal and Raj Kumar Agarwalla were thereupon arrested by the police
It appears that the police did not submit any charge sheet on the basis of the report which had been lodged by Ram Avtar and the accused were discharged
Subsequently the proceedings were set in motion against Raj Kumar Agarwalla Shanker Lal and Saheb Jaman Khan
Charge under sections 420 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code read with section 120B Indian Penal Code was framed against all the three accused
Another charge under section 420 read with section 511 Indian Penal Code was framed against Raj Kumar Agarwalla and Shanker Lal
Raj Kumar Agarwalla thereafter filed a revision petition in the High Court for quashing the charge against him
The revision petition was allowed by the High Court on the ground that so far as Raj Kumar Agawalla was concerned no case had been made out against him
Charges framed against him were consequently quashed
We have heard Mr Kshatriya on behalf of the appellant State and are of the view that there is no cogent ground for interference with the judgment of the High Court
The report which was lodged by Ram Avtar in the very nature of things made no mention of the name of Raj Kumar Agarwalla respondent because it is the case of the prosecution itself that Raj Kumar appeared on the scene only subsequent to the lodging of the report
The part which is attributed to Raj Kumar is that he was present along with Shanker Lal when the latter brought washer plates in a taxi and demanded the price of the washer plates from Ram Avtar
That circumstance as pointed out by the High Court would hardly warrant an inference that Raj Kumar respondent too was a party to any conspiracy to defraud or cheat Ram Avtar
We find no infirmity in the judgment of the High Court as might induce us to interfere
The appeal fails and is dismissed
VPS Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The complainant lodged a complaint to the police of a conspiracy to cheat and defraud him
That report did not mention the respondent s name because it was the case of the prosecution itself that the respondent appeared on the scene only subsequent to the lodging of the report
The part attributed to him was that he was present along with the person complained against when the latter came to the complainant to demand money
That circumstance alone would not warrant the inference that the respondent was also a party to any conspiracy to defraud or cheat the complainant
The High Court was therefore right in quashing the charges framed against the respondent
279E F