Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) This criminal revision has been filed under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for quashing the entire proceeding in respect of the petitioner in case number C-39938 of 2009 and the order dated 14.08.2009 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta in the said case no.C-39938 of 2009.
(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the revisional application are that the ABN Amro Bank N.V. filed a petition of complaint against Mr. Prosenjit Mukherjee and the Regional Sales Manager, Tata AIG Life Insurance Company and his men and agents at the said office at Shakespeare Sarani, A.C. Market, Calcutta 700 071 stating, inter alia, that the complainant-bank carries on banking business including extending loan under different schemes to the intending customers. Accused no.1 / Prosenjit Mukherjee was allowed to avail a credit card facility under the category of "Platinum Credit Card" having a total credit limit of Rs.8,97,000/- on his prayer. Before granting such credit card facility, Sri Mukherjee furnished his PAN card number, application duly filled up for the purpose and documents showing that he was an employee of the Tata AIG Life Insurance Company Ltd., Shakespeare Sarani and he furnished his pay slip for the month of June, 2008, etc. Sri Mukherjee availed himself of the said "Platinum Credit Card" facility after accepting terms of usage as set out by the complainant/bank. Sri Mukherjee also did retail transactions on the said "Platinum Credit Card" during the period from August, 2008 to October, 2008 as well as called for another finance facility under "Call a Draft", i.e., a cash loan facility for an amount of Rs.2,55,000/-. Sri Mukherjee never expressed any discontent about the transaction, but his liability under the category of "Platinum Credit Card" rose to the amount of Rs.11,01,199.24 paisa and in fact he repaid a nominal amount of Rs.40,000/- on 18.09.2008, Rs.22,500/- on 07.11.2008 and Rs.20,000/- on 08.11.2008 only. The complainant / bank requested Sri Mukherjee to regularise the credit card account and to pay the dues to the bank; but Sri Mukherjee did not co-operate at all.
(3.) Even the complainant / bank could never get an access to the accused person. The members of his family and other relations did not also co-operate to trace the complainant. Thus, from the conduct of Sri Mukherjee, it is clear that he acted in a pre-connived manner and cheated the complainant/bank by misappropriating huge amount by withdrawal from the said bank. The total amount of such misappropriation was to the extent of Rs.11,01,199.24 paisa. As regards the allegation against the Tata AIG Life Insurance Company Ltd., petitioner herein, the complainant / bank stated that the accused persons are dishonestly and fraudulently creating hurdles to prevent the bank from putting the fact before the proper authority for redress. The accused no.2 is the superior authority of the accused no.1 and the accused no.2 is providing full aid and assistance and abatement to the accused no.1 towards such dishonest, fraudulent concealment of property of the accused no.1 to prevent its distribution among the creditors, i.e., the complainant / bank. So such acts of the accused persons proved that the accused persons had committed such overt acts in connivance with and in pursuance of the conspiracy hatched between them. On the basis of such petition of complaint, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on 22.07.2009 and transferred the same to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ninth Court, Calcutta for disposal under Section 192(1) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. Then the learned Metropolitan Magistrate examined the complainant on S.A. On the basis of the petition of complaint and the evidence recorded thereon on S.A., the learned Metropolitan Magistrate issued summons upon the accused persons for offences under Sections 420/422/424 of the I.P.C. Being aggrieved, Tata AIG Life Insurance Company Ltd., petitioner herein, has preferred this revisional application for quashing the petition of complaint against the petitioner herein on the ground that it is not connected in any way with the loan sanctioned in favour of the accused no.1, namely, Sri Prosenjit Mukherjee.;