- (1.) This is a Revisional Application under section 482, Cr.P.C. filed by Sreekant Bangur (hereinafter refered to as the applicant) who is one of the accused persons in the Criminal Case pending before the Court of the 8th Matropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta T.R. No. 30/97 arising out of C 446/97 under section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (as amended upto date) for an order quashing the said proceeding and all orders passed therein so far as it relates to this applicant.
(2.) The Case of the applicant is that the O.P. No. 2, Kunal Kumar Chatterjee on behalf of the Peerless Abasan Finance Ltd. lodged a complaint dated 14.2.97 before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, against the applicant along with others levelling therein allegations which according to the applicant are petently absurd and inherently improbable. In that complaint the complaint (O.P. No. 2 of this revisional application) has alleged that the applicant along with three others (arraigned as accused Nos. 2 to 5 in that Petition of complaint) are Directors of the accused company, viz. M/s. Bangur Foundation Ltd. and are in Charge of and responsible to the said company for the conduct of its day-to-day business and that as per the request of the said company intercorporate deposite of Rs. 100 lakh was made by the Peerless Co. to them on 25.3.96 with interst accrued thereon for a period of 97 days. The further allegation in that complaint is that to liquidate the said liability the said company issued four cheques for 25 lakhs each and fifth cheque for Rs. 5 lakhs and odd for repayment of the entire amount of intercorporate loan with the amount of interest thereon. The cheques being drawn on the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd., Chowringee Branch were presented through the Banker of the Peerless Co., the Vaisya Bank, on 19.12.96, but they were returned with the remark, "Insufficient Funds". The Peerless Company then issued notice dated 30.12.96 demanding the total sum covered by the said dishonored cheques, but the accused company made no payment in spite of having received that notice and then this complaint was filed against the accused persons including the applicant on the plea that he is one of the Directors of the accused company. But according to the applicant this averment in the complaint is totally wrong, since this applicant was not a Director at the material point of time, nor was he in any way connected with the business of the company and this fact would be shown by the public documents or records lying with the Registrar of Companies. Therefore, according to the revisional application, the impugned prosecution as against him as without any basis, illegal and mala fide and hence, liable to be quashed.
(3.) The principles governing.the quashing of a criminal proceeding based upon complaint before a Court at an initial stage are now well-established. The apex Court in the case of Dhana Lakshmi v. Prasanna Kumar & Ors., 1990 CrLJ 320 has held that where there are specific allegations in the complaint disclosing ingredients of any offence, High Court should not quash proceedings for the purpose of putting an end to a criminal proceeding at the initial stage when the Magistrate has issued process under section 204, Cr. P.C. holding that there has been sufficient ground for proceeding. All that is to be looked into is whether the allegations levelled in the petition of complaint taken at their face value constitute the ingredients of any offence of which cognizance has been taken. In the aforementioned decision, it has been further held that the High Court was clearly in error in analyzing the case of the complainant in the light of all the probabilities and assessing the materials before it and concluding that the complaint could not be proceeded with and since the were specific allegations in the complaint disclosing the ingredients of the offence in question being supported by the sworn statement of the complaint, it sufficed for the purpose of taking cognizance or issuing process against the accused persons and the allegations were to be substantiated by the complainant at a later stage.;