2023 Supreme(Cal) 227
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
Chittaranjan Maity - Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Another - Respondent
CRR. No. 390 of 2019
Decided On : 31-03-2023
For the Petitioner:Arindam Jana, Soumajit Chatterjee, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Puspita Saha, Advocate.
In the absence of prima facie evidence to establish the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 406, 420, and 409 of the IPC, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner were liable to be quashed under the inherent powers of the court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST - Section 406 IPC - CHEATING - Section 420 IPC - CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST BY PUBLIC SERVANT, BANKER, MERCHANT OR AGENT - Section 409 IPC - Ingredients and essential elements of the offences - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the cognizance taken by the trial court in a criminal case alleging offences under Sections 406, 420, 409, 34, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner claimed that he was not a member of the board of directors of the company as alleged and that there was no prima facie evidence to establish the essential ingredients of the offences.
Finding of the Court:
The court examined the materials on record, including the Memorandum and Article of Association of the company, the company's Master Data, and the report submitted by the Assistant Registrar of Companies. It found that there was no evidence to support the allegations against the petitioner and that the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 406, 420, and 409 of the IPC were not prima facie established.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was a member of the board of directors of the company as alleged? 2. Whether there was prima facie evidence to establish the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 406, 420, and 409 of the IPC?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was not a member of the board of directors of the company and that there was no prima facie evidence to establish the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 406, 420, and 409 of the IPC. The court relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal and N. Raghavender v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which clarified the ingredients necessary to prove charges under Sections 406, 420, and 409 of the IPC.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of the proceeding being G.R. No. 2213/2015 arising out of Kolaghat Police Station Case No. 500/2015 dated 18.08.2015 under Sections 406/420/409/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, presently pending before the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purba Medinipur.
2. The petitioner’s case is that on the basis of a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the present case being Kolaghat Police Station Case No. 500/2015 under Sections 406/420/409/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code was initiated.
3. The allegations in the petition of complaint is to the effect that the accused persons are the office bearers of one Adorable Agrotech Limited having its Head Office at 3rd floor, 195 Rashbehari Avenue, Kolkata – 700 019. The said company also had its branch offices at 4th floor, Shantipur, Mecheda New Nivedita Nursing Home, Pin- 721137; Park Point Hotel beside State Bank of India, Mecheda Branch. The accused no. 1 was the director and the accused nos. 2 to 5 were the members of the board of directors of the said company. The accused no. 1/2/3 also functioned as the area managers and looked after all the branch offices within the district of Purba Medinipur. The said company advertised that upon investing in their company, the investors will get return of double or triple of the invested amount within very short period of time. Influenced by such advertisements, the Opposite Party No. 2 and other people contacted the branch office of the said company, situated at Shantipur, Mecheda, where the area manager explained about many schemes and influenced the Opposite Party No. 2 to invest money in the said company, and also promised that the board of directors of the said company will also help the opposite party no. 2 to manage his investments in future; cajoled by their words, the Opposite Party No. 2 on 30.04.2013 invested Rs. 10,000/- and on 05.09.2013 invested Rs. 50,000/- in the said company for a period of one year and the Opposite Party No. 2 was issued two certificates to that effect. Other than that, the opposite party no. 2 on other occasions also invested different amounts of money with the said company. Upon maturity of the investment periods, when the Opposite Party No. 2 approached the said company to get his maturity amount, the area manager informed him that to get the maturity amount the entire certificates of the Opposite Party No. 2 had to be sent to the Head Office. The Opposite Party No. 2, believing the words of the area manager, deposited all the original certificates and after waiting for a few days, contacted the chairman and managing director of the said company, who kept delaying the payment on different pretext. Lastly in the month of November, 2014 when the Opposite Party No. 2 went to the Mecheda Branch Office and the Head Office of the said Company, he found both the places under lock and key. The Opposite Party No. 2 tried to contact the accused persons by various means but could not. Later he understood that he had been cheated by the accused persons. The Opposite Party No. 2 at a later stage came to know that the accused persons had procured crores of money from public at large by defrauding them.
4. After conclusion of investigation in Kolaghat Police Station Case No. 500/2015 dated 18.08.2015, the investigating agency submitted Charge Sheet bearing number 552/2017 dated 31.12.2017 under Sections 406/420/409/34/120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioner and others before the court of the Learned chief Judicial Magistrate, Purba Medinipur. The Learned Magistrate by his order dated 20.01.2018 was pleased to take cognizance of the instant case.
5. That much prior to the inception of the instant case, Kolaghat Police Station Case No. 370/2014 dated 20.08.2014 under Sections 420/406/120B was registered for investigation upon the complaint of the petitioner against the director and other office bearers of Adorable Agrotech L