The power delegated upon the O.C Shakespeare Sarani Police station under Section 202 Cr.P.C. cannot be sub-delegated to the Additional OC of the said Police Station.

JUDGMENT :

Subhendu Samanta, J.

1. This is an application u/s 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the proceeding of a complaint case being No. CS 0054927 of 2016 u/s 420/465/468/471 read with Section 120B of the IPC pending before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate 15th Court Calcutta and also challenge the order dated 11.04.2017 passed by the Learned Magistrate in the said complaint case for issuance of process against the present petitioners.

2. The brief fact of the case is that the present petitioner No. 2 and 3 are the Directors and the petitioner No. 4 is the Managing Director of the petitioner No. 1 Company. The petitioner No 1 company is subsidiary Company of HDFC Bank, is non-banking Financial Corporation inter alia engaged in the business of providing loans. The instant complaint case was registered on the basis of a petition of complaint filed by the present opposite party No. 1 before the Learned Court of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate 15th Court Calcutta on 29th January 2016 alleging offence punishable u/s 420/465/468/471 read with Section 120B of IPC.

3. The brief fact of the petition of complaint is as follows:

4. That the petitioners nos. 2 to 4 and one Venkatraman Srinivasan and Smita Affinwala, are the Directors of the petitioner no.1 company and are engaged in the day to day affairs of the petitioner no. 1 company.

5. That the petitioner no. 1 had sent a notice dated 15.09.2015 to one Ravilal Hirala Exports Pvt. Ltd. demanding a total outstanding loan amount of Rs. 22172107/-under the loan account number 596398 and another notice dated 19.10.2015 to Gupta Polypack Private Ltd. Demanding a total outstanding loan amount of Rs 22181761/-under the loan account number 596446, both of which were addressed in the name of the opposite party, who allegedly has no connection whatsoever to the aforementioned companies.

6. That allegedly it was a bolt from the blue for the opposite party when he received the notices dated 15.09.2015 and 19.10.2015 from the petitioner no. 1, wherein the petitioner no. 1 has demanded a total sum of Rs. 4,43,53,868/-from the opposite party in respect of loan account bearing no. 596398 & 596446 as mentioned in the notices dated 15.09.2015 and 19.10.2015 respectively, wherein the opposite party has been shown as a Co-applicant/Guarantor in respect of the said loan account along with the borrowers i.e., Ravilal Hiralal Exports Pvt. Ltd. and Gupta Polysacks Pvt. Ltd. Both having their office at 4/1, Middleton Street, Sikkim Commercial House, 5th Floor, Kolkata-700 071.

7. That thereafter the opposite party immediately went to the office of the accused persons at 258/4, APC Road, Kolkata 700 006 and at Clive Row, 2nd and 3rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 001 and enquired about the matter and also requested to be shown the documents relating to the loan account. The opposite party was thereupon shown the documents by the accused persons, when to his shock he found that the signatures upon the documents were not his and he immediately communicated the said fact to the accused persons.

8. That the opposite party thereafter on so many occasions requested them to withdraw their said notices dated 15.09.2015 and 19.10.2015. But all efforts on the part of the opposite party went in vain and on the other hand the opposite party was threatened by the accused, coercing the complainant to pay the said amount of Rs. 4,43,53,868/-falling which they will implicate the opposite party in various other false cases.

9. That the opposite party submits that the purported signatures appearing upon the documents and/ or papers of the said loan accounts showing the opposite party as the co-applicant/guarantor are not the signatures of the opposite party, and the accused in collusion and in conspiracy with each other has forged the opposite party’s signature and are using the same as genuine to defraud opposite party thus causing a wrongful loss to the opposite party.

10. After receiving the