The High Court can quash proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only if the allegations in the petition of complaint do not disclose a cognizable offense or if the continuance of the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the court.

Debiprasad Sengupta, J.

This is an application for quashing of a proceeding being case No. 390/99 pending in the court of ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The aforesaid proceeding was initiated on the basis of a petition of complaint filed by the complainant opposite party No.1 in the court of ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah on 28.1.99 alleging commission of an offence punishable under section 406/420/467/468/471/474/120B of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations levelled in the petition of complaint are to the effect that the complainant purchased 18000 shares of M/s. Western Paque India Limited at Rs. 3 lacs on 10.2.97 and after purchase aforesaid shares were sent to the office of M/s. Western Paque India Limited situated at Pune, Maharashtra for transferring of the same in the name of the complainant and the said shares were duly received by the said company office. The complainant waited for a reasonable time but received no response from the said company regarding the transfer of shares. The complainant getting no response from the company personally contacted the accused Nos. 1 and 2 who are the share brokers under Calcutta Stock Exchange, Bombay Stock Exchange and National Stock Exchange, Mumbai several times. But they denied everything. It was also stated in the petition of complaint that finding no other way the complainant intimated the matter to the Chairman, Securities and Exchange Board of India, Nariman Point, Mumbai for redressal but to no effect. It was specifically stated in the petition of complaint that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the petition of complaint are the share brokers as aforesaid and accused No.3 is the Chairman and Managing Director and accused No.4 is the Director of the Western Paque India Limited. The present petitioner has been figured in the petition of complaint as accused No.4 as the Director of the said company. It was alleged in the petition of complaint that accused Nos. 3 and 4 who are Managing Director and Director of the said company respectively are in-charge of the day-to-day business of the said company and they committed offence along with accused Nos. 1 and 2.

3. On receipt of the said complaint the ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah by His order dated 13.1.99 took cognizance of the offence and issued process against the accused person under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code fixing 20.2.99 for service return and appearance. It is at this stage the petitioner came up before this court in revision for quashing of the said proceeding.

4. Mr. Mukherjee the ld. Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is completely innocent and is not connected with the alleged offence or at all and he has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant. Mr. Mukherjee further submits that the petitioner at no point of time was the Director of the said Company and the allegations as levelled in the petition of complaint, even if are accepted at its face value, cannot make the petitioner liable for commission of the alleged offence. It is further contended by Mr. Mukherjee that the main culprit, if the contention of the complaint are accepted, is none but one Swapan Karpas. But the complainant without implicating the said person in the present case lodged the petition of complaint implicating the present petitioner. Mr. Mukherjee submits that even if the allegations made in the complaint are accepted, then also the continuance of the aforesaid proceeding, so far it relates to the petitioner, is an abuse of the process of the court. It is the further submission of Mr. Mukherjee that the ingredients of the offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are totally lacking in the present petition of complaint.

5. In support of his contention Mr. Mukherjee relies on a judgment reported in 1997 SCC (Cri) 404, State of Karnataka vs. Moniswamy and Ors. In the said judgment it was held by the Hon'ble Apex