R.K. Bag, J. - (1.) The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the proceedings of Case No.C -848 of 2011, C -849 of 2011, C -850 of 2011, C -851 of 2011, C -852 of 2011 and C -853 of 2011 pending before the Court of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Calcutta by filing six separate revisional applications.
(2.) The backdrop of the present revisional applications is as follows: The opposite party No. 2/complainant filed six petitions of complaint before the Court of Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta praying for issuance of process against the present petitioner and others for facing the trial for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 read with Sec. 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The opposite party No. 2 - M/s. Shankar Apparels (P) Ltd. is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the complainant company). M/s. Vishal Retail Ltd. which is arraigned as accused No. 1 in all petitions of complaint, is also a limited company (hereinafter referred to as the accused company). M/s. T.P.G. Wholesale (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner company) is also arraigned as an accused in all petitions of complaint on the ground that the petitioner company has acquired all liabilities, assets and debts of the accused company after amalgamation of the accused company with the petitioner company. The directors of the accused company have been arraigned as accused No. 9 to 14 in all petitions of complaint and the directors of petitioner company have been arraigned as accused No. 3 to 8 in all petitions of complaint, as they were in control of business of the respective companies and were responsible for day -to -day business of the respective companies.
(3.) It is alleged in the petitions of complaint that accused company used to deal in varieties of products and had commercial relation with the complainant company in October, 2010. The complainant company supplied its materials and articles to the accused company for which there was an outstanding dues of Rs. 1,82,88,055/ -. The director of the accused company who was in -charge of day -to -day affairs of the said company issued several Account Payee cheques of diverse amount and dates - all drawn on State Bank of India, New Delhi in favour of the complainant company from the bank account of the said accused company with specific representation that the cheques would be encashed on presentation. The accused company issued one notice disclosing the fact that the accused company has been acquired by the petitioner company with all its liabilities, assets and debts on the date of amalgamation of the two companies. It is further alleged in the complaints that out of total cheques worth Rs. 1,82,88,055/ - issued by the accused company in favour of the complainant company, some cheques worth Rs. 81,41,101/ - were taken back by the petitioner company and in lieu of the said cheques fresh cheques issued by the petitioner company from the bank account of the petitioner company were duly encashed by the complainant company. It is alleged by the complainant company that the cheques worth Rs. 1,01,46,954/ - were not exchanged by the petitioner company and as such those cheques were lying in the custody of the complainant company, even after amalgamation of both the companies. The directors of the petitioner company did not respond to the call of the complainant company for making payment of the cheques worth Rs. 1,01,46,954/ -. Those cheques were presented by the complainant company for encashment in the Standard Chartered Bank, but those cheques were returned with the remark "insufficient fund" by the Bank on September 23, 2011. The complainant company sent demand notice to all the persons arraigned as accused in the petitions of complaint on October 19, 2011, but the accused persons did not respond after receiving the notice. Since the accused company did not make payment of the cheque amount to the complainant company within the stipulated period of time and since the accused company is acquired by the petitioner company by way of amalgamation, the complainant company filed six petitions of complaint against the accused company and the petitioner company and all their directors who were in control of and responsible for day -to -day business of their respective companies before the Court of Learned Magistrate for commission of the offence punishable under Sec. 138 read with Sec. 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.;