ANCHAL SOOD vs M/S. DIAMOND TIMBER INDUSTRIES

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:-
HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS.
CRR 1768 OF 2022
ANCHAL SOOD
VS
M/S. DIAMOND TIMBER INDUSTRIES

For the Petitioner : Mr. Pinak Kumar Mitra, Adv.
Ms. Subhanwita Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Kaustav Talukdar, Adv.

Last heard on : 28.01.2026
Judgement on : 06.05.2026
Uploaded on : 06.05.2026

CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J. :-
1. This Revisional Application was filed for quashing of a proceeding in
connection with complaint case no. 14738/2020 under Section 420/406 of the
Indian Penal Code, now pending before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate ,
th
16 Court, Calcutta. It is pertinent to mention herein that none appears to
represent the Opposite Party in this case despite service. The postal
endorsement reflected that no such person resides in the said address which
was mentioned in the written complaint. Therefore the matter was heard in
absence of the Opposite Party.
Page 1 of 18

2. The Learned Advocate argued that the complainant is a business partner firm
represented by Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma. The accused person came to the
office of the complainant company and represented himself to be a sole
proprietor of his concern Himachal Timber and Saw Mills and having
experience in dealing with various types of Plywood in the retail market of
Panchkula (Haryana) having good reputation and good will in the retail marker
of Panchkula. It was assured that if various types of plywood and timber are
sold and supplied to him he can have a good business with the company in
future. Accordingly the complainant pursuant to the order of the accused
person sold and supplied various types of plywood described in the invoice
against its proper invoice cum challan which is as follows:-
Invoice No. Date Amount
1800020378 04.03.2015 12,89,968/-

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that after delivery of the goods an
amount of Rs. 7, 89,968/- was paid to the petitioner company as a part
payment and thereby a balance sum of Rs. 5, 00,000/- was left to be paid to
the complainant company. Despite repeated request and reminders the
accused did not pay the said amount and the complainant through its
advocate issued a legal demand notice on February 10, 2020 which was posted
on February 11, 2020. The said notice was sent to his correct address but
neither A/D nor the unserved postal envelop returned to the complainant till
date.
Page 2 of 18

4. The present petitioner is a business man and is a proprietor of M/s Himachal
Timbers & Saw Mills engaged in procurement of supply and manufacture of
timber and in the State of Haryana and its adjoining states and in North India.
It is the specific case of the present complainant that he has paid an amount
of Rs. 17,89,968 to the Opposite Party but there was some dispute regarding
quality of the products supplied to the Opposite Party and hence an amount is
lying due .It is further submitted that he never received any demand notice
from the firm of the Opposite Party and only after a long period of around 6
years received the summons dated 23/11/21 from the Court of Metropolitan
th
Magistrate , 16 Court Calcutta whereby he was directed to appear before the
Learned Court on March 8,2022.
5. The Learned Advocate argued that the complaint lodged by the Opposite Party
no. 2 is primarily not maintainable as the entire cause of action arose within
the jurisdiction of the criminal Courts of Bhavnagar, Gujrat and it is barred
under Section 177 of Cr.P.C. Further submitted that a civil dispute could have
been relating to part payment but no intention to deceive or defraud from the
inception can be found from the four corners of the written complaint. It is
further submitted that there is non-compliance provision of Section 202 of
Cr.P.C. as the present petitioner /accused resides beyond the territorial
jurisdiction of the Trial Court. Therefore the order summoning the present
petitioner to appear is bad-in-law. More so there is a delay of almost 6 years in
filing the impugned proceeding as the invoices are of March 20, 2015 and the
case was filed in July 2020 without showing explanation in this regard. Lastly,
it is argued that the petition of complaint does not constitute an offence of
cheating or criminal breach of trust as there was no fraudulent or dishonest
Page 3 of 18

mens rea to cause wrongful loss to the complainant and the dispute primarily
arising out of commercial transaction. The Learned Advocate relied upon the
decision regarding territorial jurisdiction are Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. Vs.
1
Inspector of Police, Chennai and Another and relied upon the relevant
2
paragraph of 7-9, 12-19, Bhura Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan , para
3
5 & 6 , Amarendu Jyoti and Others vs. State of Chattisgarh and Others
para 11, Manoj Kumar Sharma and Others vs. State of Chattisgarh and
4
Others para 25, 27 and Kaushik Chatterjee vs. State of Haryana and
5
Others para 17-32, 36-38 .
6. The Learned Advocate further relied upon the decision reported in Abhhijit
6
Pawar Vs Hemanth Madhukar Nimbalkar para 23-28 and Deepak Gaba
7
and Others vs State of UP and Anr. , Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC
8 9
India Ltd and Ors. and V.Y. Jose and Anr. vs. State of Gujrat and Anr.
in order to show that initial deception is a sine qua non to attract offence of
cheating and mere breach of contract does not attract 420/406 IPC and civil
dispute cannot be converted into a criminal litigation. Vesa Holdings Pvt. Ltd.
10
and Anr. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. , HTC India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs.
11
Link Telecom Pvt. Ltd. . Lastly, relied upon the decision of the case of Lalit

1
(2004) 8 SCC 100
2
(2008) 11 SCC 103
3
(2014) 12 SCC 362
4
(2016) 9 SCC 1
5
(2020) 10 SCC 92
6
(2017) 3 SCC 528
7
(2023) 3 SCC 423
8
(2006) 6 SCC 736
9
(2009) 3 SCC 78
10
(2015) 8 SCC 293
11
2023 SCC Online Cal 13
Page 4 of 18

12
Chaturvedi & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. , Arshad Neyaz
13
Khan vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr para 19-26 and Sekhar Sharma Vs.
14
State of West Bengal & Anr. .
7. Heard the submission of the Learned Advocate. Ongoing through the
complaint lodged under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure before the
Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate , Calcutta it appears that the
complainant being a partnership firm had his office and place of business at
46C Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Kolkata 16.It further transpires that the
accused person the complainant/ the firm sold and supplied various types of
plywood of total amount was Rs.12,89.968 and after delivery of the said goods
an amount of Rs. 1, 7,968 was paid to the present complainant company and
a balance of Rs. 5 lakhs was left to be paid. This amount was not paid in spite
of repeated request made by the complainant and lastly a legal demand notice
was sent in the month of February 2020. The invoice date is found to be of
March 4, 2015 and the legal notice was sent on February 2020 that is long
after 5 years. No other communication was mentioned in the complaint in
order to show that there was any assurance on the part of the accused person
to return the amount or any other cogent explanation which prompted them to
send such legal notice long after 5 years. The petition of complaint was filed in
the month of July 2020. Therefore prima facie a prolong delay in lodging such
complaint is apparent. The cognizance was taken by the Learned Magistrate on
July 27, 2020 subject to the question of maintainability in terms of the
decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Satish Chandra Ratan Lal Sha Vs

12
(2024) 12 SCC 483
13
2025 Live Law (SC) 950
14
2025 SCC OnLine Cal 2886
Page 5 of 18

15
State of Gujrat and Another and subject to the question of territorial
th
jurisdictional competence. The matter was transferred to the Court of 16
Metropolitan Magistrate for enquiry and order. In the case of Abhhijit Pawar
Vs Hemanth Madhukar Nimbalkar (supra) it was held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court that the object of enquiry by Magistrate in cases where the
accused reside at place beyond his jurisdiction is mandatory mostly to ward off
false complaint against such person residing at far of places in order to save
them from unnecessary harassment. Therefore it was held, that before issuing
the process it is mandatory on the part of the Magistrate to conduct such
enquiry was to filter the false complaint and reject. It was further held that
such enquiry before issuing the process is not an empty formality.
16
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court took note of the decision of Vijay Dhanuka
where it was held :-
“No specific mode or manner of inquiry is provided
under Section 202 of the Code. In the inquiry
envisaged under Section 202 of the Code, the
witnesses are examined whereas under Section 200
of the Code examination of the complainant only is
necessary with the option of examining the witnesses
present, if any. This exercise by the Magistrate, for
purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient
ground for, proceeding against the accused, is nothing
but an inquiry envisaged under Section 202 of the
Co de.”
9. In the present case the complainant company after adducing evidence as P.W.
1 on January 13, 2021 stated that a part amount was paid to their company

15
(2019) 9 SCC 148
16
(2014) 14 SCC 638
Page 6 of 18

and the balance amount was not paid. He also said that if it had been to their
knowledge that the accused will not pay the amount they would not deliver
goods and hence accused had intention to deceive from the very beginning.
P.W. 2 Nripendra Krishna Dey was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C who
also said about the transaction with them for the first time and to create
confidence the accused made part payment thereafter he did not pay.

10. The Learned Magistrate on January 13, 2021 held that prayer was made for
issuing process on behalf of complainant company against accused person
under Section 204 of Cr.P.C and considering the decision judgement of Lalita
17
Kumari Vs. Govt. of UP and observed that the mandate of 202 Cr.P.C must
be followed when the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction beyond the
area in which the Magistrate exercised his jurisdiction. The Learned Magistrate
vide his order dated 13.1.21 directed the complainant to further adduce
evidence to satisfy the court with regard to legality of issuing process against
the accused person under Section 204 of Cr.P.C and postponed the process
under Section 202 of Cr.P.C for further enquiry .After that the employee of the
complainant company deposed as P.W.2 on S/A under section 200 Cr.P.C. The
Learned Magistrate considered the evidence adduced and ,observed that the
complainant company delivered good of Rs. 12,89,000/-to the accused person
and an amount of Rs. 7,89,968 /-was paid leaving an amount of Rs. 5lacs as
due amount. He further considered that despite repeated approach made by
the complainant company the accused did not pay and killed time and even
after the demand of notice sent upon him he did not pay .The Learned
Magistrate also considered that the quality of the goods were not complained of

17
(2014) 2 SCC 1
Page 7 of 18

by the accused person and also did not raise any dispute hence he had a mens
rea from the very beginning to deceive the complainant and also held that the
prima facie it is established that the accused has cheated the company and
induced him to deliver the goods.
11. In the judgement of Y. Abraham Ajith (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court
dealt with the jurisdiction of the Learned Magistrate where all the offences
were taken place at a different place and no part of cause of action arose
within the jurisdiction of the Learned Magistrate’s Court .Section 177 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure deals with ordinary place of inquiry and trial
which reads as follows;
“ 177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial-
Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and
tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was
committed.”
Section 178 Cr.P.C deals with the place of inquiry or trial
which reads as follows :
“178. Place of inquiry or trial-
a) when it is uncertain in which of several local areas
an offence was committed ,or
b)Where an offence is committed partly in one local
area and partly another ,or
c) where an offence is continuing one, and continues
to be committed in more local areas than one ,or
d) where it consists of several acts done in different
local areas,
it may be inquired into or tried by a court having
jurisdiction over any of such local areas.”

Page 8 of 18

It was held in this case that “while in civil cases, normally the expression
“cause of action” is used, in criminal cases as stated in section 177 of the Code,
reference is to the local jurisdiction where the offence is committed. Theses
variations in etymological expression do not really make the position different.
The expression “cause of action” is, therefore, not a stranger to criminal cases.”
In this case the complainant company is having his place of business within
the jurisdiction of park street police station and the accused person came
there and then the transaction commenced but the goods were delivered at the
address of the accused company situated at Panchkula ,Haryana and the
order was placed at Haryana . However the petitioner has prayed for quashing
of the entire proceeding where one of the other ground is lack of jurisdiction.
The pertinent point falls for consideration whether the allegations levelled
against the petitioner are even considered on the face of it whether it would
constitute any offence under Section 420 and 406 of the IPC .In the case of G.
18
Sagar Suri vs State of UP which has been taken note by the Learned Co-
ordinate Bench in 2023 SCC Online Cal 13 , it was observed ;
“‘It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of
civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal
offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of
other remedies available in law. Before issuing
process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal
of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This
Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which
High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section
482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this Section has to

18
(2000) 2 SCC 636
Page 9 of 18

be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance
should be prevented from seeking remedies available
in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or
persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the
criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his
remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made
accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal
proceedings, in accordance with law. One positive
step that can be taken by the courts, to curb
unnecessary prosecutions and harassment of
innocent parties, is to exercise their power under
Section 250 Cr.P.C. more frequently, where they
discern malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives on
the part of the complainant. Be that as it may.”
In this case the part payment was not in dispute which was out of a
transaction between the parties and after having discussion over the matter.
Certain goods were also supplied so how far it can fall within the four corner of
Section 420 is to be ascertained. Section 420 IPC laid down-
“420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing
delivery of property.-
Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the
person deceived to deliver any property to any
person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any
Page 10 of 18

party of a valuable security, or anything which is
signed or sealed , and which is capable of being
converted into a valuable security, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to sever years, and shall also be
liable to fine.
Ingredients of offence.
- The essential ingredients of
the offence under Sec. 420 are as follows:-
(1) There should be fraudulent or dishonest
inducement of a person by deceiving him;
(2) (a) The person so induced should be intentionally
induced to deliver any property to any person or to
consent that any person shall retain any property, or
(a) the person so induced to do anything which he
would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and
(b) in cases covered by second part of clause(a), the
act or omission should be one which caused or was
likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced
in body, mind or property.
The two essential ingredients of the offence under this
section are-
(A) Deceit, that is to say dishonest or fraudulent
misrepresentation, and
(B) Inducing the person deceived to part with
property.”
Page 11 of 18

On close scrutiny of the entire complaint and the nature of allegation levelled
no material can be found which suggest that the petitioner dishonestly
induced the complainant to deliver property at the inception .In innumerable
cases the Hon’ble Apex court pointed out the clear distinction between a civil
wrong and in the form of breach of contract, non-payment of money or
disregard to and violation of the contractual terms, and the offence under
Section 420 and 406 IPC. In a recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Lalit Chaturvedi and others vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (supra) it
was observed and held in para 7 taking note of the decision of V.Y Jose vs
19
State of Gujarat ;
“7. Similar elucidation by this Court in V.Y. Jose v.
20
State of Gujrat explicitly states that a contractual
dispute or breach of contract per se should not lead to
initiation of a criminal proceeding. The ingredient of
“cheating”, as defined under Section 415 IPC, is
existence of a fraudulent or dishonest intention of
making initial promise or representation thereof, from
the very beginning of the formation of contract.
Further, in the absence of the averments made in the
complaint petition wherefrom the ingredients of the
offence can be found out, the High Court should not
hesitate to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. Section 482 Cr.P.C saves the inherent power
of the High Court, as it serves a salutary purpose viz.
a person should not undergo harassment of litigation
for a number of years, when no criminal offence is
made out. It is one thing to say that a case has been
made out for trial and criminal proceedings should not

19
(2009)3 SCC 76
20
(2009) 3 SCC 78
Page 12 of 18

be quashed, but another thing to say that a person
must undergo a criminal trial despite the fact that no
offence has been made out in the complaint.

This Court in V.Y. Jose placed reliance on several earlier decisions in Hira Lal
21 22
Hari Lal Bhagwati v. CBI , Indian Oil Corpn. V. NEPC India Ltd. , Vir
23
Prakash Sharma v. Anil Kumar Agarwal , and All Cargo Movers (India)
24
(P) Ltd. V. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain. .
25
12. In the case of Arshad Neyaz Khan , the Hon’ble Apex court held that
Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code cannot co-exists on same
allegation .The offence of cheating involves criminal intention from inception,
and for criminal breach of trust there is lawful entrustment at the beginning,
which is later misappropriated .It was held that both these offences cannot
exits simultaneously on same facts as they are ‘antithetical ’to each other. It is
settled law that for establishing the offence of cheating the
complaint/respondent no 2 was required to show that the appellant had a
fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or
representation of not fulfilling the alleged agreement for transaction more so
nothing can be found to establish such a culpable intention, right at the
beginning. In the said case there was a delay of 8 years in lodging the
complaint and the complainant failed to impress the court about the reason for
the delay and hence it created suspicion about the bona wwfides of the
complainant .The Hon’ble apex court was of the view that:

21
(2003) 5 SCC 257
22
(2006) 6 SCC 736
23
(2007) 7 SCC 373
24
(2007) 14 SCC 776
25
2025 Live law (SC) 950
Page 13 of 18

“ Further, the complainant /Respondent no. 2 had
an alternative remedy of filing a civil suit claiming
damages for the alleged violation of his contractual
rights which has not been availed but a route through
criminal proceedings, when no ingredient of offence is
made out ,cannot be permitted. Criminal law ought
not to become a platform for initiation of vindictive
proceedings to settle personal scores and vendettas.”

26
In 2024 Delhi Race Club (1940 ) ltd vs State of Uttar Pradesh also the
distinction between “criminal breach of trust” and “cheating” was discussed
and observed that for cheating ,criminal intention is necessary at the time of
making false or misleading representation ;i.e. since inception and in criminal
breach of trust mere proof of entrustment is sufficient.
13. In the case in hand although the complainant tried to maintain that in order
to convince the company that the petitioner had a shop at Haryana at that
address the goods were delivered and to create confidence the petitioner made
part payment in reality and the goods were delivered at the said address at
Haryana arranged and part payment was made. So question of fraudulent
representation from the inception is absolutely missing ,on the contrary the
complainant send the goods at that address which was duly received and more
than 7 lacs were paid leaving a due of Rs 5lacs which were alleged not to have
paid. The invoice is dated 2015 and the legal notice was given in the year 2020
when the complaint was lodged in the year 2020 and the petitioner/accused
for long 5 years assured him of paying the dues so no action was taken earlier.

26
(2024)10 SCC 690
Page 14 of 18

He also alleged of threatening with dire consequences and abused him but no
27
specific time or date is mentioned. In the case of Vijay Dhanuka it was held
that the requirement of conducting enquiry or directing investigation before
issuance of process is not an empty formality .This exercise by the Magistrate
is for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused which is an enquiry envisaged under Section
202 Cr.P.C . In this case the learned Magistrate did the enquiry but found that
allegations of 420 and 406 are maintainable as the transaction was admitted
and there was a part payment on delivery of goods observed that the allegation
of cheating and criminal breach of trust is prima facie well established. This
Court is unable to accept the view of the Learned Magistrate as he did not
apply his mind regarding the territorial jurisdiction, the prolong delay and that
the offences as alleged failed to attract any required ingredients and then
issued the process. The accused person had to surrender and obtain bail on
the basis of such erroneous observation. The basic purpose of the enquiry
under Section 202 Cr.P.C which is to ascertain the truth or falsehood is found
to be frustrated due to the non-application of mind of the Learned Magistrate.
14. The principles relating exercise of power under 482 Cr.P.C to quash the
complaint and criminal proceedings are dealt with in a catena of decisions
some which were mentioned in the decision of Indian oil Corporations NEPC
India Ltd (supra) which are as follows-
“ 12 . The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have

27
(2014)14SCC 638
Page 15 of 18

been stated and reiterated by this Court in several
— Madhavrao Jiwajirao
decisions. To mention a few
Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao
28
Angre , State of Haryana v. Bhajan
29
Lal , Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh
30
Gill , Central Bureau of
Investigation v. Duncans Agro industries
31
Ltd. , State of Bihar v. Rajendra
32
Agrawalla , Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of
33
Delhi , Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P)
34
Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. , Hridaya Ranjan
35
Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar , M.
36
Krishnan v. Vijay Singh and Zandu
Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful
37
Haque . The principles, broadly are:-

(i) A complaint can be quashed where the
allegations made in the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out the case alleged against the
accused.
For this purpose, the complaint has to be
examined as a whole, but without examining the
merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed
inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material

28
(1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234
29
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426
30
(1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059
31
(1996) 5 SCC 591 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1045
32
(1996) 8 SCC 164 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 628
33
(1999) 3 SCC 259 :1999 SCC (Cri) 401
34
(2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 615
35
(2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786
36
(2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 19
37
(2005) 1 SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283
Page 16 of 18

nor an assessment of the reliability or
genuineness of the allegations in the complaint,
is warranted while examining prayer for
quashing of a complaint.
(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is
a clear abuse of the process of the court, as
when the criminal proceeding is found to have
been initiated with mala fides/malice for
wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where
the allegations are absurd and inherently
improbable.
(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be
used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution.
The power should be used sparingly and with
abundant caution.
(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim
reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence
alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is
laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that
a few ingredients have not been stated in detail,
the proceedings should not be quashed.
Quashing of the complaint is warranted only
where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic
facts which are absolutely necessary for making
out the offence.
(v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely
a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or
(c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A
commercial transaction or a contractual dispute,
apart from furnishing a cause of action for
seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a
criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a
Page 17 of 18

civil proceeding are different from a criminal
proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint
relates to a commercial transaction or breach of
contract, for which a civil remedy is available or
has been availed, is not by itself a ground to
quash the criminal proceedings. The test is
whether the allegations in the complaint disclose
a criminal offence or not.”
Therefore on conspectus of the entire above factual matrix and the law laid
down in this regard this Court and the nature of allegations as the complaint
did not disclose a criminal offence or not is of the view that the proceeding
pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is liable to quashed since if
allowed to be continued would be an abuse of the process of the court.
15. Hence this CRR is allowed in absence of the Opposite Party.
16. The entire proceeding pending before the learned Magistrate is hereby
quashed.
17. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned Court forthwith for
taking appropriate action.
18. Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to
the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.

[CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.]


Page 18 of 18