- (1.)AGGRIEVED by the continuance of the criminal proceeding relating to the Raiganj Police Station Case No. 7 of 2007 under Section 406/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner moved the instant criminal revision for quashing of the same.
(2.)THE learned Senior Counsel Sardar Amzad Ali appearing in support of the instant criminal revisional application contended that the impugned criminal proceedings as well as the FIR are liable to be quashed ont he following grounds ;
(a) The FIR has been lodged out of sheer mala fide. (b) The allegations are not genuine, and are wild, omnibus, vague, baseless, bereft of any sense and not supported by any materials on record. (c) As it appears from the complaint the entire grievance is against the company but the company has not been impleaded as an accused in the FIR. (d) The allegations are inherently malicious and neither the petitioner nor the company was approached for refund and repayment of the deposits. (e) The complainant has no locus standi and from the allegations made in the complaint it does not appear that he has at all any grievance, in other words it does not appear from the complaint that the complainant was in any way aggrieved against the conduct of the accused/petitioner. (f) Inspite of no offence being committed by the petitioner in his personal capacity he has been charged with an offence under Section 406/ 420 of the Indian Penal Code. (g) There was no whisper about the mode in which the alleged offence has been committed and as to how the complainant suffered loss. The total amount cheated has not been mentioned in the FIR. (h) The complainant has no right to file this complaint in a representative capacity as a substitute of a public interest litigation and thus the FIR is liable to be quashed. (i) On the allegations made in the complaint there is no ultimate chance of conviction of the petitioner. (j) The allegation at best give rise to a civil dispute and not a criminal offence. (k) No allegation of initial deception. (I) Reasons for non refund of the deposits are due to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. (m) In support of his contention Mr. Ali relied on a decision relating to the case of Alpic Finance v. Sadasiva and Anr. , reported in AIR 2001 SC 1226 as well as on a decision of our High Court in the case of M. S. Banga v. State of West Bengal and Anr. reported in (2005)1 Cal HN 92.

(3.)MR. Debobrata Roy, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State produced the case diary and draws the attention of this Court to the evidentiary materials collected during the course of investigation. According to Mr. Roy that uptil now the materials so far collected are quite sufficient to make out a prima facie case against the petitioner. He further submitted at this initial stage when the investigation has not yet been completed thwarting of such investigation at the very threshold by quashing the FIR does not at all arise. He further pointed out to the 161 statement of the depositors where they categorically stated that the accused persons suppressing the facts that several cases including criminal cases are pending against the company Golden Forest (India) Limited and its directors on the charge of cheating the depositors at Punjab and by virtue of an order passed by the Security Exchange Board of India on January 9, 1998 the company has been directed not to mobilise any fund from the investors, the said accused persons induced the depositors to invest and reinvest by way of renewing their deposits. He further draws the attention of the Court to the letter of Retired Chief Justice, R. N. Agarwal, Chairman of the Committee gfil, which are the part of the case diary.