The pendency of BIFR proceedings does not bar criminal proceedings, and delay in lodging the FIR alone is not a ground for quashing proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Madhumati Mitra, J. - Petitioners have prayed for quashing of the criminal proceedings being G.R.Case No.4105 of 2011, pending before the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.

2. The background aspects of the matter, so far relevant for the present purpose, may be narrated, in brief, as follows:-

Opposite party no.2, Textile Agency Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act being represented by one Bal Krishna Garodia on 22.11.2011 lodged an FIR with Hare Street Police Station, alleging that they were share-holders of M/s. East India Cotton Mfg. Co.Ltd. holding 1000 equity shares of the said company and the said company was employing about 2500 workers in its plant of Faridabad. It was alleged in the said F.I.R. that the company shut down its operations in 1995 with ulterior motive to defraud the share-holders. It was further alleged that the company had approached the Board for Financial and Industrial Reconstruction (BIFR) for reducing the loans payable by it to the financial institutions, Haryana Government, Canara Bank, Oriental Bank, etc. as well as to its creditors in the market. It was also alleged in the said FIR that the company with a view to cheat everybody concerned disposed off all the current assets including land under the pretext that the said assets had been damaged. In the said FIR, it was also alleged that the company approached the BIFR with a scheme asking for various concessions from Govt. institutions and shareholders. The scheme was approved on 10.01.2007, where the Director of the company Harish Gupta assured that the company would restart production within a few months. Accused sold the entire plant and machinery etc. in 2006 to one Mr. S.L. Pahadia & Co., in collusion with Jyoti Udyog Ltd., a sister concern of the said EICM. It was further alleged that the entire payment of Rs.186 Lacs was received in cash by one Mr. Jai Narayan Singh, on behalf of Jyoti Udyog Ltd. The accused sold out the assets of the company prior to submissions of revival scheme and they gave statement to BIFR on 13.08.2008 that they had not sold any assets of the company.

3. On the basis of that FIR, Hare Street Police Station Case No. 855 of 2011, dated 24.11.2011 was initiated against the FIR named accused persons for commission of alleged offences punishable under Section 420/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code. Investigation ended in submission of charge-sheet against the accused persons for commission of alleged offences punishable under Sections 420/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Case record reveals that on 03.12.2019, the petitioners filed supplementary affidavit to bring certain facts on record. Petitioners have also filed written notes of argument.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has elaborately advanced his submissions in favour of quashing of the proceedings pending against the petitioners. While making his submissions he has laid emphasis on the following grounds:-

The allegations contained in the First Information do not prima facie disclose the commission of alleged offences under Section 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been contended by the Learned Counsel for the petitioners that the opposite no.2 initiated the criminal proceedings against the petitioners after being unsuccessful before the BIFR and AAIFR as his prayer for cancellation of rehabilitation scheme provided to the East India Group was turned down. Learned Counsel has further submitted that alleged sale of machinery and land in the year 2006 and 2007 are the subject matter of civil suit pending before the civil court. According to the contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners, the grievance of the opposite party no.2, as it appeared from the averments of the First Information Report that East India Group fraudulently invoked the provisions under SICA. He has vigorously argued that taking recourse to the provisions of SICA by East India Group cannot be called in question by way of initia