Shib Sadhan Sadhu, J. - (1.) THE petitioner by means of the present petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeks to quash the entire proceedings of the G.R. Case No. 4437 of 2011 under Sections 120B/420/465/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 65/71/73/74 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 pending before the Court of Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.
(2.) A petition of complaint was filed by the complainants (O.P. No. 2 & 3 herein) against the present petitioner and 5 others alleging that the complainants are the Directors of a company named MRS Management Services Private Limited. They formed a new company named M/S. MRS Agro Tech Limited at the same address. The F.I.R. named accused persons became Director, Managing Director and Officers of the newly formed company and hatched a criminal conspiracy to grab the entire company depriving the complainants of their legitimate rights. The accused persons in pursuance of such conspiracy dishonestly and fraudulently prepared various false and forged documents like share certificate, forms and applications, Board Resolution etc. using various electronic gadgets and medium like computer, scanner, printer and internet etc. They also forged the signature of the complainants and submitted those before the R.O.C., West Bengal Circle as genuine through e -mail and illegally grabbed the company of the complainants for their wrongful gain causing wrongful loss of Rs. 20,00,000/ - to the complainants. Mr. Siladitya Sanyal, Learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argued that the facts, stated in the FIR and statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. even after accepted as it is, do not constitute the alleged offence so far as the present petitioner is concerned. He further contended that the petitioner is a bonafide holder of shares of the said company. He had no role to play so far as the commission of alleged offence is concerned. At best the dispute, if any, arose out of commercial transaction and as such the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating or forgery etc. are not made out and the institution of the criminal proceedings is a sheer abuse of process of law and thus the impugned proceeding is liable to be quashed.
(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Ayan Basu, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, argued that from the contents of the FIR and the case diary statements, specially from that of the co -accused, a prima facie case of conspiracy to cheat the complainants with the help of some forged documents and alleged offence under the Information Technology Act is made out also against the present petitioner. Therefore, no interference is warranted since the investigation is still continuing.;