- (1.) The petitioner has preferred the revision under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for quashing the proceeding of G.R. No.406 of 2015 arising out of Hare Street (DD) Police Station Case No.109 dated February 19, 2015 under Sections 120B/420/467/468/469/471/511 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Court of Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.
(2.) The backdrop of the present revisional application is as follows: The opposite party no.2/complainant submitted written complaint before the Special Additional Commissioner & Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime), Kolkata on February 18, 2015 praying for registration of a criminal case against the petitioner under Sections 120B/420/466/467/468/511 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears from the said written complaint that the opposite party no.2/complainant is the Promoter/Director of Pragati 47 Development Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office in Kolkata. Initially, the petitioner, his wife Vandana Agrawal and one R. K. Banerjee were Directors of Pragati 47 Development Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as "the Company"). In the year 2005 the Company formed a joint venture with Housing and Urban Development Corporation and the said joint entity is named as Pragati Social Infrastructure and Development Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as PSIDL). Subsequently, in the year 2007 the said Joint Venture Entity PSIDL launched a project for Development of Aerotropolis i.e. the airport and adjoining airport city in Durgapur, West Bengal. For the said purpose, Bengal Aerotropolis Project Limited (hereinafter referred to as BAPL) was formed in the year 2008 with the company and other investors being the constituent members. The petitioner was a Director of BAPL and the Company, but he resigned from the Directorship of BAPL and the Company in January, 2010. It further appears from the said written complaint that the airport city is coming up fast in Andal in the vicinity of Durgapur in West Bengal for the strenuous effort of the opposite party no.2/complainant. The opposite party no.2/complainant is the Managing Director of BAPL and overlooking the entire development project, which will generate employment in the State of West Bengal. Having resigned from the post of Director of BAPL and the Company, the petitioner along with his wife Vandana Agrawal have unleashed a sustained campaign of not only defaming the opposite party no.2/complainant, but also has put all possible impediments towards successful completion of the aerotropolis project.
(3.) The opposite party no.2/complainant along with his wife started a proceeding before the Company Law Board, Kolkata Bench under Sections 397/398 of the Companies Act, and the said proceeding is registered as Company Petition No.509 of 2010. The petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit in the said proceeding before the Company Law Board, Kolkata Bench by falsely claiming himself as Director of the Company. The petitioner annexed a fake Board Resolution of the Company to the supplementary affidavit, which purportedly reflected that he had been authorised to represent the Company. The said fake Board Resolution was also attested by the petitioner by putting a forged seal purportedly showing him as the Director of the Company. The petitioner in collusion with his wife, Vandana Agrawal and one Yudhistir Kumar Gauba have falsely claimed themselves to be the Directors of the Company before the print media and other public authorities and have filed false supplementary affidavit and forged Board Resolution of the Company before the Company Law Board. Even the registered office of the Company is shown to have been changed in the forged Board Resolution, which reflects the intention of the petitioner and his associates to commit fraud upon the opposite party no.2/complainant and the said company.;