D/L – 37 07/09/2026 Court No.42 S.Kundu CRR 2379 of 2024 Altaf Hussain & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. 1. Despite directions for representation, the parties are unrepresented today as well. 2. The matter since is pending in the docket since 2024, it is in the interest of justice that it be disposed of on the basis of the materials already available on record, as such the matter is taken up for disposal. 3. The petitioners, by the present revisional application under Section 397, 401 read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., have prayed for quashing of the proceeding being CS No. 57877 of 2024 under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC, currently pending before the 11th Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. 4. The petitioners have sought quashing of the said complaint Case on the ground that no offence against the petitioners has been made out, the said complaint has been filed out of vengeance and the allegations made in the said complaint are mala fide. 5. It is also alleged in the revisional application that the present dispute is commercial in nature and the opposite party no. 2 has intentionally suppressed Article 6 of the Loan agreement 2 dated 25th November 2023, whereby all disputes between the parties arising out of the said agreement would be referred to a sole arbitrator appointed by the opposite party no. 2 as such, despite an alternative remedy and forum of arbitration in case of default, the said opposite party no. 2has filed the aforesaid complaint case with fraudulent/mala fide intention, which deserves to be quashed. 6. I have perused the complaint. It appears that the opposite party no. 2 has brought this prosecution on an allegation against the petitioners for inducing the said opposite party no. 2 with false representation to sign a loan agreement sanctioning Rs. 10,00,000/- in their favour on certain terms and conditions laid down in the Business Loan Agreement executed between the parties and on the petitioners’ consequent failure to repay the said loan amount. 7. Upon perusal of the materials-on-record, I am of the prima facie view that the grounds urged by the petitioners in support of quashing of the connected impugned proceeding raise disputed questions of fact, the veracity of which cannot be decided by this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, rather it is the domain of the Trial Court to decide the matter by conducting a full- fledged trial upon recording of evidence. 8. In view of the above discussion, I find that the revisional application lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, CRR 2379 is dismissed. 10. Interim order, if there be any, stands vacated. 3 11. There shall be no order as costs. 12. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance with requisite formalities. (Uday Kumar, J.)