Back
2022 Supreme(Cal) 496
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Ananda Kumar Mukherjee, J.
Suresh Kumar Agarwal - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal And Another - Respondent
C.R.R. 1501 of 2014 With IA No. CRAN 24 of 2022 With C.R.R. 1739 of 2014
Decided On : 29-07-2022
Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee, Mr. Ayan BhattacharyaMr. Aniruddha Agarwalla, Ms. N. Ahmed, Mr. D. Mukherjee, Mr. Phiroze Edulji, Mr. Koushik Kundu, for the Appellant; Mr. Phiroze Edulji Mr. Koushik Kundu, Mr. Swapan Banerjee, Mr. Suman Dey, Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee, Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya, Mr. Aniruddha Agarwalla, Ms. N. Ahmed, Mr. D. Mukherjee, Mr. Binay Panda, Ms. Puspita Saha, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is that criminal proceedings can continue independently of civil proceedings, and the magistrate's power to direct reinvestigation is limited.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Proceedings - Indian Penal Code - Sections 403, 406, 409, 418, 420, 477A, 120B - The court discussed the criminal proceedings initiated during the pendency of civil proceedings regarding severance and partition of joint family business and properties. The court held that the criminal case was independent of the civil dispute and should not be quashed. The court also found that the magistrate was not justified in directing reinvestigation and modified the order to continue with further investigation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a director of a company, filed a revisional application seeking to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 403, 406, 409, 418, 420, 477A, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The case arose during a dispute between the petitioner and his brother over the joint family business and properties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the criminal case should not be quashed despite the pendency of civil proceedings. It also held that the magistrate was not justified in directing reinvestigation and modified the order to continue with further investigation.
Issues: The main issue was whether the criminal case should continue during the pendency of civil proceedings and whether the magistrate's order for reinvestigation was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the criminal case was independent of the civil dispute and should not be quashed. It also found that the magistrate was not justified in directing reinvestigation and modified the order to continue with further investigation.
Final Decision: The revisional application was allowed in part, and the court directed the investigating agency to continue with further investigation of the case.
JUDGMENT
Ananda Kumar Mukherjee, J. - This revisional application under Section 397 and 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by petitioner Suresh Kumar Agarwal, one of the Directors of Piyarelal Imports and Exports Private Limited, impleaded as Opposite Party No.2 petitioner in CRR No. 1739 of 2014, against M/s Piyarelal Imports and Exports, Private Limited represented by Sri Surajit Mukherjee wherein he has prayed for quashing of proceedings of Hare Street Police Station Case No. 326 of 2009 under Sections 403, 406, 409, 418, 420 and 477A read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code giving rise to G.R. Case No. 1414 of 2009 pending before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta and for setting aside of order dated 19.3.2013 passed by learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta whereby after submission of Final Report by the investigating officer on dated 21.10.2012 the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was pleased to allow the prayer of the Opposite Party in the 'Naraji Petition' and order reinvestigation of the case.
2. Brief fact of the case leading to the present application for revision is that, petitioner was one of the Directors of Opposite Party No. 2 Company along with his brother Ramesh Kumar Agarwal and they together looked after the day to day affairs of the company. While petitioner managed the business of the company at Mumbai, Ramesh Kumar Agarwal used to manage the business in Kolkata.
3. M/s. R. Piyarelal Group of Companies was started by the father of petitioner and Ramesh Kumar Agarwal who expired in the year 1994. After the death of their mother in 2007 dispute cropped up between the two brothers giving rise to several litigations between them and their families.
4. According to the petitioner Ramesh Kumar Agarwal surreptitiously filed several Company Petitions in the name of Opposite Party No. 2 before the Company Law Board, Principal Bench, New Delhi in December, 2007. During pendency of the proceedings before the Company Law Board both the brothers realized that it could not be possible for them to continue as a joint family with joint family business and sought for partition and severance of the joint family business and properties by distribution of various companies between two groups and it was agreed that all the disputes and various company between them would be amicably settled.
5. The parties approached the Hon'ble Company Law Board through Joint Compromise Petition for settlement in terms of the prayers made in the petition. After hearing the parties and on the basis of Joint Compromise Petition filed by the parties for settlement, the company Law Board passed a order on 27.2.2008. According to the petitioner Ramesh Kumar Agarwal did not comply with the terms of the Civil degree passed by the Company Law Board and execution petition was filed which went up to the High Court and certain directions were passed in favour of the petitioner by order dated 16.3.2010 in compliance with such direction books and accounts were handed over under cover of a letter dated 31.3.2010. during pendency of the civil proceeding before the competent court of law, Opposite Party No.2 through its authorized representative, Surajit Mukherjee lodged a complaint against the petitioner under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta giving rise to C. Case No. 25092 of 2009, alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 403, 406, 409, 418, 420 and 477A of IPC read with Section 120B of the IPC.
6. On 21.5.2009 learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was pleased to direct Officer-in-Charge, Hare Street Police Station to treat the complaint as First Information Report and investigate the case. The same was registered as Hare Street Police Station Case No. 326 of 2009 dated 3.6.2009 under Sections 403, 406, 409, 418, 420 and 477A read with Section 120B of the IPC. The petitioner has contended that
