The court emphasized that the continuance of the criminal proceedings would not amount to an abuse of the process of the Court, and it was not a fit case to exercise the discretion under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present petitioners have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and sought for an order to quash the charge-sheet being no.613/18 dated 14.09.2018 under Sections 3(1)(a) of the West Bengal Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2013 and under Sections 420/406/409/120B of the Indian Penal Code arising out of Sankrail Police Station, Case No. 76/2016 dated 29.01.2016 pending before the Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Howrah.

2. The present petitioners are three FIR named accused persons.

3. In their application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioners have described themselves to be the former Directors of M/s. Rising Agrotech Ltd. of 35/1 Kali Temple Road, 3rd floor, Kolkata, 700026, and stated that they had resigned from the directorship of the company in the year 2010.

4. Opposite party no.2 Anup Kumar Roy on 29.01.2016, lodged an FIR with Sankrail Police station making allegations against the FIR named accused persons that they being the Board of Directors of Rising Agrotech Limited and Rising Tourism Limited, Arijit Tie up, Royal Consumer Business Pvt. Ltd., Royal Finance Pvt. Ltd., having their registered office at 35/1, Kali Temple Road, dishonestly misappropriated the entire fund of the investors/depositors of the company amounting to Rs.1,69,01,336.00/-. It was alleged in the said FIR that the FIR named accused persons by their wide ranging dishonest attractive publication relating to the investment and by giving false assurance that they would repay the principal amount with exorbitant rate of interest i.e. they would repay double amount after expiry of six years and four times of capital amount after expiry of ten years. They used to receive money from public. Depositors invested money and purchased the policies which were duly acknowledged by the said company and after the period of maturity of those policy certificates and recurring schemes of one year and three years the company did not make repayment of any amount to the depositors as per their commitment. It was also alleged that accused had accumulated a huge fund from the depositors by misleading them for misappropriating the entire fund for their personal gains.

5. On the basis of the said FIR Sankrail, P.S.Case no.76 of 2016 dated 24.01.2016 was started against the FIR named accused persons for commission of alleged offences under Sections 420/406/409/120B of the Indian Penal Code.

6. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons along with others for commission of alleged offences punishable under Sections 406/409/420/120B I.P.C and 3(1)(a) of the West Bengal Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2013. (Hereinafter referred to as Act of 2013).

7. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has contended that M/s. Rising Agrotech Limited was incorporated on July 13, 2010 and obtained the certificate for commencement of business on July 23, 2010. Petitioner no.1 resigned from the said M/s. Rising Agrotech Limited on August 02, 2010 and petitioner nos. 2 and 3 subsequently resigned from the said company on 31st July, 2010, but their resignation letters were not forwarded to the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal without any cause by the company and therefore the petitioners once again submitted their resignation from the company on 30.11.2010. Learned Advocate has further contended that the petitioners also resigned from M/s. Rising Tourism Limited on 15.11.2010. It has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that on and from the date of submission of their respective resignation from the above mentioned two companies on 30.11.2010 and 15.11.2010 the petitioners had no connection with the business of the said two companies.

8. At the outset, Learned Counsel has invited the attention of the Court to certain orders passed by