Jay Sengupta, J. - (1.) The petitioner has challenged an investigational proceeding including the First Information Report in CGR Case No. 2029 of 2012 pending before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24 Parganas arising out of Bhowanipore Police Station Case No. 228 of 2012 dated 02.05.2012 under Sections 467, 472 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code.
(2.) It appears that the opposite party no. 2/de facto complainant being the Director of Chittaranjan National Cancer Insitute (CNCI, for short) lodged a First Information Report against the petitioner, the then Assistant Director, CNCI and the Principal Investigator of a project funded by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO, for short) at CNCI, Kolkata. The crux of the allegations contained in the First Information Report were as under:- (i) On scrutiny of records it was revealed that amounts of Rs. 8,49,875/- and Rs. 1,22,083/- had been drawn by two demand drafts, both dated 10.04.2012 in the name of CDA (R & D), which were supposed to be refunded to the funding agency being the unspent balance in respect of the project. But, the drafts were not sent to the funding agency till the afternoon of 27.04.2012 and it was lying with the petitioner. On being asked by the opposite party no. 2, the petitioner deposited it at the former's office. (ii) At the time of opening of the back account, it had been agreed that the bank operation would be done by the Director jointly with the Senior Accounts Officer and in the absence of the Director, by the Principal Investigator jointly with the Senior Accounts Officer and in absence of the Senior Accounts Officer, with the Administrative Officer. But, on enquiry with the bank, it was found that the above referred drafts were issued by the bank on the advice of the petitioner being the Principal Investigator and no signature of the Director or Senior Accounts Officer or Administrative Officer was found on the advice although the Director was in the office on that date. (iii) The advice/application bore the seal of Assistant Director (Senior) as that of the petitioner although no such post existed. The word "senior" was written in ink.
(3.) Mr. Kaushik Gupta, the Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was a reputed and an award winning scientist. He contended that no prima facie case was made out against the petitioner as alleged as would be evident from a plain reading of the First Information Report. As such, the impugned proceedings were liable to be quashed. He submitted that no case of forgery or preparation of false document is made out at all. Even technically, the offending provision would not be attracted as the document did not lie about itself. On this, he relied on the ratio laid down in (i) Sheila Sebastian vs. R. Jawaharaj & Anr, 2018 7 SCC 581 and (ii) J. Th. Zwart & Ors vs. Indrani Mukherjee, 1990 1 CalHN 62. He submitted that insertion of the word "senior" was merely to mark the petitioner's seniority. He submitted that if at all, it was an irregularity that caused no harm to anyone. No one was benefitted unduly. He further contended that even if the bank draft were cancelled, the amount would have come back to the Department and not gone to the petitioner. The Learned Advocate submitted that any further continuation of the impugned proceeding would be an abuse of the process of Court.;