- (1.) THE petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the entire criminal proceedings in a Complaint vide C.P. Case No. 392 of 2005 and the order impugned dated 3.2.2007 passed by Sri B.K. Lal, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro who; upon finding prima facie materials against the petitioner in an enquiry under Section 202 of Cr. P.C. directed summons to be issued against the petitioner Tanushree Banerjee for the alleged offence under Sections 406/ 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) THE prosecution story in. short for the appreciation of the merit of this case was, that the complainant -opposite party No.2 Rajendra Prasad, filed a complaint aforesaid in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro against as many as four accused persons, including the petitioner, Tanushree Banerjee alleging, inter alia, that the accused Meena Kumari, Mani Devi and Ajit Kumar, all the partners of the 'M/s Data Craft Technology' along -with the petitioner who was the Manager (Adm.) in the said firm, committed criminal breach of trust in furtherance of their common intention by dishonestly inducing the complainant -opposite party No.2 to invest and deliver a sum of Rs.4 lakhs in the said firm pursuant to an agreement and promise that the amount so invested by him shall. be returned with interest. It was further alleged in the complaint that the accused persons in lieu of such investment issued six post dated cheques, total to the tune of Rs.5,18,000/ - as per terms and conditions, but when the said cheques were presented by the complainant -opposite party No. 2 for payment, it were returned to him with the endorsement and memo of the drawees Bank dated 27.5.2005 that the account holders had 'already closed their accounts' and in this manner the cheques issued by the accused persons returned unpaid. The complainant/opposite party No. 2 then sent a legal notice on 10.6.2005 calling upon the accused persons to pay the cheque amount in cash totaling to the tune of Rs.5,18,000/ - within 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter but the accused persons failed to do so within the statutory period, hence the cause of action for the complaint. The complainant/opposite party No. 2 finally alleged that the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention and with ulterior motive induced several persons including him to invest money in the said firm and thereby cheated all the investors in the same manner as they cheated him individually. The complainant had given list of the persons who were cheated at the hands of the accused persons and dishonestly caused wrongful loss to the investors but wrongful gains to themselves. Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, the learned counsel pointed out that from the plain reading of the complaint case, it would be evidently clear that the petitioner was acting as Manager (Administration) and was assigned the duty of convincing people and making them agreed for investment in the said firm as admittedly, she was a salary paid employee in M/s Data Craft Technology. She used to get her salary through cheques issued by the firm duly signed by the partners. It would not be but of place to mention, the learned counsel exhorted, that salary paid to her through cheques were also dishonoured and to that effect the father of the petitioner preferred a complaint case No. 421 of 2006 in the Court of C.J.M., Bokaro. against the partners (co -accused) of the said firm for the alleged offence under Sections 420/ 384/389/467/468/471/406/506 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code for causing deception to her during employment of the petitioner in their firm. Advancing his argument Mr. Sarkhel submitted that a certificate was issued to the petitioner by the firm M/s Data Craft Technology under the signature of the co -accused Meena Kumar Lone of the partners in the firm, certifying that Tanushree Banerjee (petitioner) joined her company as a paid employee on monthly salary basis and that she had no personal claims or liabilities regarding any business proceedings of the said company and that she used to work as per instructions of the partners which was being followed by her. It was further certified therein that any public dealing regarding financial or any other matter had no personal relation with Tanushree Banerjee (petitioner) (Annexure -4).
(3.) THE attention of this Court was attracted towards the fact that after enquiry under Section 202 of Cr. P.C. the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act only against three accused persons excluding the petitioner upon finding no criminal liability with respect to such offence against her. The complainant -opposite party No. 2 then preferred Cr. Rev. No. 141 of 2005 in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro who by his order dated 7.3.2006 set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate dated 26.9.2005 with the direction: - "So far as the operative portion of issuing processes is concerned, the learned Magistrate is directed to pass order for issuing of processes against all the accused persons named in the complaint petition. Accordingly, this revision stands allowed." ;