Debi Prosad Dey, J. - (1.) The petitioner company through its authorized representative filed a petition of complaint before the learned 2nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate II, Kolkata disclosing commission of offence by the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 and two others namely Ram Chandra Chattopadhyay and Smt. Bimala Chattopadhyay punishable under Sections 420/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Magistrate accordingly after compliance of the provisions of Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure issued process against all the accused persons.
(2.) The order was challenged before the learned revisional Court on the ground that there was a clause of arbitration and the learned Trial Court did not comply Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the time of issuing process. The learned 1st revisional Court accepted such proposition and allowed the revisional application and thereby set aside the order passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Calcutta. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed against the order dated 16.06. 2016 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bench No. II, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta in Criminal Revision Case No. 162 of 2014.
(3.) With the leave of the Court the opposite parties have filed affidavitin-opposition wherefrom it transpires that that one Ram Chandra Chattopadhyay died on 16.04.2012 and Smt. Bimala Chattopadhyay died on 03.11.2005, though process was issued against them also by the learned Court. The case of the prosecution, in brief. is that one Anil Krishna Saha projected himself as the power-of-attorney holder of the rightful owners of such land and executed an agreement of development of such land with the complainant. Rs. 45 lacs was paid to opposite party no. 2. It is evident from the documents annexed with the application that such power-of-attorney was executed in favour of Anil Krishna Saha in the year 1990. The agreement was executed by and between the parties on 23rd October 2013. It is crystal clear to show that the opposite party no. 2 had definite knowledge about the deaths of Ram Chandra Chattopadhyay and Smt. Bimala Chattopadhyay. Such factum of deaths of the aforesaid two persons has been disclosed by opposite party no. 2 in his affidavitin-opposition, therefrom it may certainly be held that such Anil Krishna Saha, opposite party no. 2, had definite knowledge of the deaths of Ram Chandra Chattopadhyay and Smt. Bimala Chattopadhyay. The power-of-attorney executed by Ram Chandra Chattopadhyay and Smt. Bimala Chattopadhyay (since deceased) came to an end on the dates of their deaths. Secondly, the averments in the petition of complaint further reveals that opposite party no. 2 did not adhere to any of the terms of such agreement and did not do anything despite receipt of Rs. 45 lacs from the petitioner company.;