JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioner is the juridical person, a company namely, Indian Infoline Limited, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. In this case the petitioner has challenged the proceedings in CR Case No.926 of 2012, now pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purba Midnapore (though initially was lodged in the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate, 4th court at Midnapore). The said case is under Sections 163(4)/196(3)/301(5)/372A (6) of the Companies Act and Sections 467/120B of the Indian Penal Code. In this case the petitioner/company has prayed for quashing of the entire proceeding now pending in the trial Court.

2. Mr. Basu being led by Mr. Bhattacharya has challenged the criminal proceeding against his client, i.e, the present petitioner, on the grounds inter alia that the complaint lodged against his client would not reveal any cognizable offence against the said alleged accused, that the contentions and allegations in the complaint would not make out a case at all against the petitioner/company, that the facts of the case would reveal about lodging of a criminal case against the petitioner/company to be due to malice and wrecking vengeance only, for which reason such a proceeding would not be maintainable in the eye of law.

3. Mr. Basu has taken this Court to the photocopy of the complaint annexed with the present case to submit firstly that the complaint was specifically directed against the ‘subsidiary’ of the present petitioner, namely India Infoline Finance Limited. He would further submit that being the ‘holding company’, the present petitioner has no manner of business and control as to the accused no.1, i.e, India Infoline Finance Limited. According to him, by no stretch of imagination the petitioner would have been arrayed as an accused in the said case or considered to be involved in any way.

4. Mr. Basu would submit that accused no.9, i.e, “The President, Indian Infoline Limited” is an imaginary post/designation and that there is no post as “The President” under the law to have any authority to represent the petitioner/company. That is to say, there exist no such post with the petitioner/company namely “The President”. He indicates to the relevant provision of the statute, to show as to who would have been actually the responsible officers eligible to represent the company. Mr. Basu has thereafter travelled through the contentions and allegations made in the said complaint dated 03.10.2012. He has particularly denied and disputed the facts stated in the same regarding purchase of share (two in number) by the complainant, from the petitioner/company, at any point of time. He has reminded that equity shares of the company is to be dealt in a particular manner and process, through the intermediary. He firstly submits that there is no scope and also no allegation regarding purchase of any share from the petitioner/company by the complainant herself. So far as the accused no.10 is concerned, i.e, the Managing Director, CEO of Guinness Security Limited, Mr. Basu says that his client does not have any connection or control regarding the business of the said accused, neither the petitioner is connected with the same in any manner whatsoever. The complainant might have, at any point of time, had taken up business of purchase of shares through accused no.10 as intermediary, but the petitioner/company is neither aware of the same nor connected with any of the business of accused no.10. Mr. Basu has pointed out to the relevant documents from supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner and submitted that not the shares of the petitioner but two debentures, which are inherently in the nature of loans, were purchased by the complainant, that too, not from the petitioner but the accused no.1 namely India Infoline Finance Limited. He has shown requisite documents annexed with the supplementary affidavit, that on the two debentures the complainant at one point of time has also been granted interests, which the