- (1.) The CRR no. 3210 of 2014 was filed earlier for quashing the proceedings started against the petitioners by way of an order for issuance of process passed on 17th January, 2013 by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Calcutta in Complaint Case No. 61/2013 of his Court. In the subsequent CRR no. 617 of 2015, the same petitioners have prayed for quashing a subsequent order passed by the Ld. Magistrate on 15th of December 2014. In the said order the Magistrate had rejected the petitioners' prayer to stay further proceedings against them till disposal of their earlier CRR no. 3210 of 2014. Both the Revisional applications have been heard together by this Court, and obviously the result in CRR 3210 of 2014 which is the parent proceeding, will govern the fate of the subsequent CRR 617 of 2015.
(2.) The petitioners are two of the four accused persons who were summoned in terms of the aforesaid Order. Initially another co-accused, namely, Madhav Kumar Lodha had also participated in the filing of the first application. But subsequently, his name was dropped as he chose not to press the same from his side. Consequently only the petitioners, Anup Lodha and Anant Kumar Lodha remained on record as such. They happen to be the accused numbers 3 & 4 in the original petition of complaint.
(3.) The complaint was filed against five accused persons the first of which happens to be a registered Company on the premise that the remaining four accused persons are its Directors. They were, therefore, claimed to be liable for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act when certain cheques issued in favour of the Complainant Company were dishonoured.;