SUVRA GHOSH, J. - (1.) In the instant application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the proceedings of complaint case no. C.S. / 21563 of 2019 under section 406/420/120B of the Penal Code pending before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Calcutta.
(2.) The contention of the petitioners, in a nutshell, is that opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint before the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta on 28-05-2019 stating, inter alia, that the opposite party is a holder of 27,000 equity shares in the petitioner no. 1 company of which the other petitioners are directors. In 2016 the opposite party noticed that the said share certificates were misplaced and the said fact was intimated to the petitioners vide letter dated 26-08-2016, requesting issuance of duplicate share certificates. No reply being received by the opposite party, another letter was issued on 19-09-2016 to which the petitioners sent a reply vide letter dated 07-10-2016 stating there was no share holding in the name of the opposite party as on that date. The balance sheet of the petitioner company as on 31-03-2015 reflected that the opposite party was holding 27,000 shares in the company though the name of the opposite party was wrongly typed therein. The opposite party alleged that the petitioners dishonestly misappropriated the amount of share certificates for their own use for making wrongful gain.
(3.) Learned counsel has further submitted that on or about 20-06-2016 the shares were transferred by the opposite party in favour of the petitioner nos. 2 to 4 following negotiations between the parties which is depicted in the annual returns for the period 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 obtained from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. The opposite party received a sum of Rs. 2, 70,000/- by way of pay order of HDFC bank towards such transfer. The present directors of the petitioner company were inducted in place of the previous directors on 15-06-2016 whereas the opposite party was holding shares in the company prior to the said date. Therefore it can be inferred that petitioner nos. 2 to 4 were not in a position to induce the opposite party to purchase such equity shares. The advocate's notice was also served after lapse of two years from the alleged incident.;