ASHA ARORA,J. - (1.) By the instant application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioners prayed for quashing of the proceeding of GR Case No. 1492 of 2000 arising out of Kotwali P.S Case No. 417 of 2000 dated 4th November, 2000 under sections 120B/407/465/463/471 of the IPC pending before the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri (now Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri).
(2.) The backdrop of the matter leading to the present application may be summarized as follows : The Opposite Party no. 2 Salil Kumar Ghosh filed a petition of complaint under section 156(3) of the CrPC before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri against the petitioners alleging commission of the offences punishable under sections 120B/407/465/468/471 IPC which was sent to the officer-incharge of Kotwali P.S for treating the same as FIR. Pursuant thereto, Kotwali P.S Case No. 417 of 2000 dated 4th November, 2000 was registered for investigation. According to the complainant/opposite party no. 2, his firm named M/s. Electrical Concern submitted a quotation on 5th December, 1990 for electric work in the unit of the petitioner no. 1 Company which was accepted and an order was placed upon the complainant for execution of the aforesaid work which was duly completed. It is further alleged that the petitioner no. 1 failed to clear the bills despite reminders demanding arrear payment for the work done by the complainant. The complainant then moved a petition for winding up under the Companies Act, 1956 before the High Court at Calcutta being C.P. No. 546 of 1997. By an order dated 18th February, 1998 the aforesaid winding up proceeding was disposed of against which the complainant preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court which is still pending. Further case of the complainant is that on 22nd September, 2000 one Lalan Prasad Singh went to the office of the petitioner no. 1 company to participate in the Annual General Meeting where the balance sheet, profit and loss account of the petitioner no. 1 company for the year ending on 31st March, 2000 under the heading Annual Report and Accounts, 1999-2000 was circulated and published. On perusal of the aforesaid Annual Report it appeared that the information regarding the pendency of the liquidation proceeding against the petitioner no. 1 was not disclosed therein and in the circumstances the shareholders of the petitioner no. 1 company could not consider the legitimate demand of the complainant. By suppression of the aforesaid fact regarding pendency of the liquidation proceeding the petitioners painted a rosy picture of the company and its shareholders. The petitioners thereby committed criminal beach of trust and prepared the Annual Report by committing forgery and circulated the same to the shareholders and the public projecting it as genuine.
(3.) It is the contention of the petitioners that the liquidation proceeding at the instance of the complainant/opposite party no. 2 was disposed of in favour of the petitioner no. 1 company by an order dated 18th February, 1998 and no stay was granted in the appeal which was preferred by the complainant against the aforesaid order. It is evident from the order passed in the liquidation proceeding that there was no outstanding due and as such, complainant cannot be regarded as a creditor of the petitioner no. 1. The factum of non disclosure of the pendency of the appellate proceeding does not constitute an offence. The allegations in the petition of complaint do not disclose the ingredients of the offence of criminal beach of trust and forgery.;