IMPORTANT POINT
In the event the institution of a criminal proceeding in the attending facts and circumstances of a case irresistibly points towards an abuse of process of court, Court in exercise of its inherent power is justified to quash the same.

JUDGMENT

Joymalya Bagchi, J. —The petitioners have prayed for quashing of proceeding in G.R. Case No. 573/2011 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah arising out of Jagacha P.S. Case No. 51 dated 2.2.2011 under Sections 406/420/336/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1973.

2. The instant criminal case was initiated on the basis of an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 instituted by opposite party No. 2 hereinbefore the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, inter alia, alleging as follows:

Opposite party No. 2 is carrying on business in manufacturing and sale of wagons, coaches and other equipments to Indian Railways and has high reputation in the said field; opposite party No. 2 commenced manufacturing of EMU (Electrical Multiple Unit) coaches for carrying passengers since 2007; for the purpose of manufacturing such coaches, the company was required to purchase (i) break pull rods for bogie breaks as per railways’ drawing and specification No. EMU/M-3-2063 and (ii) block hanger inner vide railways drawing and specification No. EMU/M-3-2050; the petitioner No.1 carries on business in manufacturing of such products and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are his associates; in or around 2008, the petitioners represented that they shall manufacture and supply such articles in accordance with the railways specification and design to the opposite party No. 2; on the basis of such representation and believing the same to be true, opposite party No. 2 company placed purchase order dated 21.9.2010 for a sum of Rs. 13,66,560 for purchase of aforesaid articles, namely, break pull rods for bogie breaks and inner block hanger as per railway’s drawing and specifications; the goods were supplied to opposite party No. 2 company and utilized for the purpose of manufacturing of coaches; such manufactured coaches were supplied to the railways authorities, the railways authorities, particularly, Santoshpur Car shed, complained that the aforesaid components, namely, break pull rods and inner break block hangers were malfunctioning; opposite party No. 2 company was compelled to take back the defective materials from the railways authorities on 23.9.2010; the quality control tests conducted by the opposite party No. 2 company revealed that the said components were faulty and/or defective; the said defective articles were thereafter sent to the petitioners for replacement with a request to supply articles as per specification and/or quality; till date, nothing has emerged despite the petitioners having received the said articles; the opposite party No. 2 suffered loss of goodwill due to the act of the petitioners in supplying faulty and defective components resulting in rejection of EMU coaches supplied by opposite party No. 2 to the railways authorities; supply of such coaches had also put the lives of many passengers at stake and opposite party No. 2 was induced to pay Rs.13,66,560 for purchase of such defective and faulty components; petitioners thereby committed offence punishable under Sections 406/420/336/120B of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Pursuant to the direction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, impugned criminal proceeding being G.R. Case No. 573/2011 arising out of Jagacha P.S. Case No. 51 dated 2.2.2011 under Sections 406/420/336/120B of the Indian Penal Code pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah was registered for investigation.

4. During pendency of the aforesaid criminal proceeding, petitioners approached this Court praying for quashing of the same, inter alia, on the premises that the uncontroverted allegations did not disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences and the impugned proceeding was instituted in malicious and harassive manner as a counterblast to a notice of winding up under Section 434 of the Companies Act issued by petitioners upon opposite party No. 2 company for non-payment of outstanding dues to the tune of Rs.18,28,968 against materials delivered.

5. It