A non-executive Director of a company cannot be held vicariously liable for offenses committed by the company before he joined it, and the continuance of such proceedings against him would be an abuse of the process of court.

As the learned Advocates for both the parties submitted that the subject-matter of all the five revisions are same, so, by a common judgment, all the matters are taken up for disposal.

2. The application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was lodged by the petitioner for quashing of proceedings in connection with the complaint case No. C-26935/2011 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Calcutta under Sections 418/420/406/120B IPC and the orders passed therein including the orders dated 16.1.11 and 22.1.11 respectively.

3. In brief the background of these revisions are that the petitioner is a non-executive Director of MIMEC India Ltd. situated at 5th floor, Poonam Building, 5/2, Russell Street, Calcutta-71 since 28.3.2005. Before that the petitioner was in no way connected with the said company. The petitioner came to know that on or before 14.12.11, a petition of complaint had been filed against the petitioner in complaint case No. C-26935/2011 before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Calcutta. The complaint shows that the said company, being accused No. 1 alongwith accused No. 2 to 9 being Directors and other Officers of accused No. 1 published and distributed a pamphlet/brochure named “Prakiti Beckons” offering to public to sell plots on the outskirts of Hyderabad about 36 kms. away from the heart of the city on NH 9, close to Ramojirao Film City. Based on such representations the complainant purchased a plot of land of the said Project and received the sale deed in 1994 executed on 7.4.94 at Nalgonda, A.P. and made over to him by the accused No. 10 and 11. But, subsequently, no development was carried out.

4. When the complainant asked explanation from accused No. 1 to 9, for the first time, they pleaded that they are merely marketing agent of accused nos. 10, 11 and 12. In 2011 the complainant learnt for the first time that either the entire or parts of land under “Prakiti” project has already been resold to third parties including one M/s. Sri Sri Developers who in turn have renamed the project as “Rich Valley” and reselling the plots to general public. The complainant asked explanation through Advocate’s letter dt. 26.4.11 for refund of the money entrusted with the accused and make good loss for such dishonest acts. To utter surprise the accused persons vide letter dt. 27.6.2011 washed their hands of liability asking the complainant to take up the matter with either accused No. 10 or Sri Sri Developers. Thus, the company and the KMR States & Buildings Pvt. Ltd. and the Directors and Officers have committed offence under Sections 418/420/406 IPC read with Section 120B IPC. The petition of complaint, if taken notice of in its entirety and believed to be true does not make out the offence as alleged against the petitioner. The allegations are vague and omnibus. The alleged sale of land and execution of deed at sub-Registrar, Nalgonda, A.P. took place in 1994. The petitioner only became associated with the said company as non-executive Director on and from 28.3.2005 and by no stretch of imagination can be said to be liable for any act or omission committed before such date.

5. Having failed to succeed before the consumer court, the complainant filed a money suit being No. 477/2011 and that was also dismissed for default by the order dated 7.5.2008. The restoration petition is pending against that order. The complaint has been filed as an arm twisting technique. Before the consumer court and the civil court, there is no specific allegation as to the entrustment of any property whatsoever by the complainant to the petitioner.

6. Hence, the basic ingredients of Section 406 IPC are not made out in the instant case. There is no specific averment in the complaint as to the role played by the petitioner in the cheating/inducement of the complainant. The complaint has been lodged merely to pressurize and harass him. There is no element of cheating in the p