The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for conclusive evidence regarding the authenticity of disputed signatures in determining the nature of the dispute as civil or criminal.

JUDGMENT

Tirthankar Ghosh, J. - The present revisional application has been preferred by SRMB Srijan Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused company/petitioner') challenging the order dated 08.05.2018 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore in C.G.R. Case No. 1344 of 2016, arising out of Ballygunge Police Station case no. 42 of 2016 dated 23.03.2016 under Section 465/467/468/471/114 of the Indian Penal Code, wherein the learned Magistrate was pleased to allow the application under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Narazi Petition filed at the instance of Great Eastern Energy Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant company').

2. The genesis of the case relates to an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed at the instance of the complainant company being case no. Sl. No. 40/16 dated 11.03.2016 wherein the prayer for police investigation of the complainant company was allowed by the learned CJM, Alipore and pursuant to which Ballygunge Police Station Case no. 42 dated 23.03.2016 was registered for investigation under Section 465/467/468/471/114 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegations made in the application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure were to the effect that the complainant company was engaged in the business of CBM (Coal Bed Methane) gas exploration and distribution at various places including Asansol, Raniganj and Durgapur for which the complainant company signed a production sharing contract with the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, Government of India. The accused company is one of the customer of the complainant company which is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of mild steel materials. The accused company operated its manufacturing units at Durgapur, West Bengal. Pursuant to discussion and negotiations between the representatives of the accused company (being represented by Mr. Nikunj Beriwala and Mr. Nikhil Goyal) with the complainant company (represented by Mr. S. Suriyanarayanan) and after the representation of the accused company expressed their interest for using CBM Gas in the steel plants situated at Durgapur, an agreement for sale and contract was entered on May 11, 2011. The said agreement was duly signed by Mr. S. Suriyanarayanan (Chief Financial Officer) in presence of Mr. Monik Parmar [Assistant General Manager (Marketing)] and Mr. Sridhar Vishwanath (Assistant Manager) on behalf of the complainant company and Mr. Ashish Beriwala (Director) in presence of Mr. Rajib Ghosh (G.M. Project) and Mr. Nikhil Goyal (Project Coordinator) on behalf of the accused company. From time to time the said agreement was amended which would be reflected in the addendum and was subsequently executed by the complainant company and the accused company. It has been contended that any change to the agreement were counter signed by both the parties and there was unilateral change made in page 5 clause 5.2 of the said agreement by the accused company, thereby reducing the number of days from 78 to 75 per quarter and which was not approved by the complainant company nor did it contain the signature and/or initial of the authorized signatory on behalf of the complainant company. The accused company intended to reduce number of days from 78 to 75 per quarter and which was not approved by the complainant company. The fact that such change did not have the approval of the complainant company is abundantly clear from the reply dated February 13, 2012 of the complainant company to the letter issued by the accused company regarding the second addendum to the said agreement. As the differential amount was negligible in the context of the entire business turnover between the parties such error was not immediately detected. However, as soon as the complainant company under cover of letter dated July 14, 2014, brought the same to the notice of the accused persons and raised bill for the differential Minimum