IMPORTANT POINT
A frivolous criminal proceeding cannot be allowed to continue.

JUDGMENT

Madhumati Mitra, J.—Petitioner no.1 is a company incorporated under the provision of Companies Act and petitioner no.2 is the Regional Legal Manager, Petitioner nos. 3,4,5,7 and 11 are the Independent Directors of the petitioner no.1, petitioner no.6 is the Chairman and Managing Director of petitioner no.1 and petitioner nos. 8 and 9 are the Executive Directors of petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.10 is the Executive Director of petitioner no.1.

2. Petitioners have approached for quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated on the basis of complaint filed by the opposite party i.e. C. Case no.588 of 2017 under Section 406/465/468/469/471 read with Section 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Calcutta.

3. Before dealing with the rival submissions of the parties, it would be appropriate to set out the facts briefly.

4. Complainant took loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from petitioner no.1 company and agreed to repay the same along with interest by way of 24 equal monthly instalments of Rs.50,896/- each. Complainant executed loan agreement and ECS debit mandate in favour of petitioner no.1 for the amount of 24 EMI to be debited from HDFC Bank, Kolkata for repayment of the said loan along with interest and on demand of the said company also entrusted or parted 8 blank Banking Instruments being cheque nos. 688577 to 688584 of HDFC Bank duly signed as security deposit at the time of execution of loan agreement with encashment of seven ECS, the complainant made repayment of Rs.3,56,272/- to the petitioner no.1. Complainant decided to foreclose the loan account after realizing that the rate of interest was unjust. On 07.05.2014, the complainant expressed the intention to foreclose the loan account. On 13.05.2014, the petitioner company demanded a sum of Rs.8,38,333/- along with penal interest, overdue interest, pre-closure charges. Complainant protested and asked to waive the interest of 17 months. Petitioner company refused to reduce the amount. It has been alleged by the complainant that at the time of execution of the loan agreement the opposite party/complainant had protested regarding the rate of interest which was at the rate of 20% per annum and also against the policy of Reserve Bank of India. It has been claimed by the complainant that assurance was given to the complainant that the rate of interest would be considered after payment of first 6 instalments on time. Complainant demanded 8 blank banking instruments, but the complainant was threatened by the petitioners. Complainant sent a notice dated 21.03.2014 to the petitioner company for return of the blank banking instruments and also requested not to misuse the same. On 23.05.2014, petitioner company gave a reply stating that the said instruments were issued by the complainant voluntarily in discharge of legal liabilities. Thereafter, the complainant received notices dated 11.08.2014, 25.06.2015, 13.10.2015, 02.09.2016 under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act for Rs.3,05,376/- each as the aforesaid cheques were returned unpaid to the petitioners with remark ‘payment stopped by the drawer’. Complainant gave reply to the aforesaid notices. Thereafter, the petitioner company on the basis of the aforesaid notices initiated four separate proceedings viz. complaint cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It has been alleged by the complainant that the accused company refused to return the blank cheques with a view to make the complainant defaulter and ultimately converted the same into valuable documents and used the same as genuine for illegal purpose knowing very well that the same were forged and got the same dishonoured before initiating the aforesaid four criminal proceedings against the complainant.

5. Complaint was registered as Complaint Case No.588 of 2017 by the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta and thereafter the complaint case was transferred to