15.7.2026 SL No. 8 Ct No. 42 SB CRR 2596 of 2017 CRAN 2 /2018 (Old No. CRAN 877/2018) Manoj Poddar Vs. M/S. Allied Sales Corporation 1. When this revisional application is called on for hearing, none appears to represent either the petitioner or the opposite party. No accommodation or prayer for adjournment is sought. 2. Records reveal that this revisional application has been languishing on the files of this Court since the year 2017. Administrative notice was duly served upon the opposite party, and multiple opportunities have been extended to the petitioner to appear and take necessary steps to prosecute the matter. The absolute dormancy and reluctance of the parties to proceed with the matter clearly demonstrate their lack of interest in its preservation. 3. It is a primary tenet of judicial administration that courts of law cannot be used as parking spaces for dormant litigation, where applications are filed merely to secure interim protection and then left to languish indefinitely. Public policy commands that long-pending litigations must be resolved with utmost dispatch to prevent the choking of the judicial system. When ample opportunity has been given and the parties choose to remain wilfully absent, the Court is duty- bound to examine the materials available on record and dispose of the application on its merits rather than allowing it to clog the docket. Accordingly, I take up this matter for final disposal on the basis of the materials on record. 4. The instant revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been preferred by the petitioner, Manoj Poddar, praying for quashing of the proceedings in Complaint Case No. CN/0003607/15 pending before the Learned 19th Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata, under Sections 420, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, including the order taking cognizance dated January 28, 2015, and all subsequent orders passed therein. 5. The matrix of the dispute, as gathered from the petition of complaint, is that the opposite party/complainant is a partnership firm dealing in various welding electrodes and MIG wires. Upon representations and assurances held out by the accused persons, the complainant supplied goods to the tune of Rs. 15,52,025/- to the Accused No. 1 Company. 6. After making an initial payment of Rs. 5,00,000/-, the accused persons promised to clear the outstanding balance of Rs. 10,52,025/- in instalments. To this end, ten cheques drawn on Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd., Kolkata, were issued between January 2014 and November 2014. Upon presentation, all ten cheques were returned dishonoured by the banker. 7. The complainant alleges that the accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to fraudulently induce the complainant to deliver the merchandise with a pre-existing dishonest intention of not paying for the same, thereby committing offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust, and misappropriation under Sections 420, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. In the revisional application, the petitioner, Manoj Poddar (arrayed as Accused No. 2), seeks quashing of the prosecution against him on the following grounds: First, that he is merely described as a "contact person" in the complaint and holds no formal position as a Director, shareholder, or authorized signatory of the Accused No. 1 Company. Second, that the ingredients of Section 406 of the IPC are absent as there was no personal "entrustment" of property to him. Third, that the ingredients of Section 420 of the IPC are not attracted since the goods were supplied to the company, and the dishonoured cheques were not issued from his personal account. Fourth, that the dispute is purely commercial in nature, and the parallel initiation of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, renders the IPC prosecution an abuse of the process of court. 9. I have carefully perused the materials on record, including the petition of complaint, the grounds in the revisional petition, and the impugned order dated January 28, 2015, passed by the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. 10. The primary shield set up by the petitioner is his lack of formal corporate designation within the Accused No. 1 Company. While it is true that vicarious liability under the Indian Penal Code cannot be imputed to corporate officers in the absence of specific statutory provisions, the complaint in this case does not seek to prosecute the petitioner merely by virtue of a corporate status. On the contrary, the complaint contains specific, direct, and active allegations against the petitioner. 11. Paragraphs 2(b) and 2(c) of the complaint explicitly allege that the petitioner (Accused No. 2) was actively responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company and that the complainant parted with its goods relying on the direct assurances, promises, and representations made by the accused persons, including the petitioner. It is further alleged that when the cheques bounced, the petitioner actively participated in meeting the complainant, offering explanations of financial hardship, and holding out false assurances of repayment to stall legal action. 12. At the stage of taking cognizance and issuing process, the Learned Magistrate is only required to see if a prima facie case is made out on the face of the complaint. As settled by the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, a criminal proceeding can be quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. only when the allegations, accepted in their entirety, fail to disclose the essential ingredients of the offence. 13. In the present case, the allegations prima facie disclose the elements of fraudulent inducement, delivery of property, and subsequent dishonest misappropriation carried out in furtherance of a common intention. Whether the petitioner was indeed a mere "contact person" without decision- making power, or whether he did not play the alleged role in the transaction, are matters of defense. Such disputed questions of fact cannot be summarily adjudicated by this Court in a revisional jurisdiction and must be left to be tested through cross-examination during trial. 14. Furthermore, the existence of a parallel commercial remedy or proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not act as an automatic bar to criminal prosecution under the Indian Penal Code. A single transaction can have both civil and criminal consequences. Since the allegations prima facie disclose the ingredients of cheating and criminal breach of trust, the criminal law cannot be choked at the threshold. 15. I find no jurisdictional error, patent illegality, or manifest impropriety in the order dated January 28, 2015, whereby the Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences, or in the continuation of the proceedings in Complaint Case No. CN/0003607/15. 16. For the reasons discussed above, the prayer for quashing of the proceedings stands rejected. 17. C.R.R. No. 2596 of 2017 is hereby dismissed. 18. All connected applications, including CRAN 2 of 2018 (Old No. CRAN 877/2018), stand disposed of. 19. The interim order of stay granted earlier, if any, stands vacated. 20. The petitioner, Manoj Poddar, is directed to appear before the Learned Trial Court on each and every scheduled date of hearing. 21. The Learned Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial with utmost expedition and bring the same to its logical conclusion in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations made herein, which are strictly confined to the disposal of this revisional application. 22. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Learned Trial Court immediately for information and necessary action. 23. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Uday Kumar, J.)