The main legal point established in the judgment is that a criminal complaint can be quashed if it is barred by law under specific provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

JUDGMENT :

Subhendu Samanta, J.

1. This is an application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of complaint case Being No. CS-0023522 of 2015 u/s 181/193/199/200/209 of IPC and all orders passed therein including the order dated July 8th, 2015 passed by the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, thereby taking cognizance and order dated April 5th 2017 passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate 6th Court Calcutta thereby issuing process against the present petitioner.

2. The brief fact of the case is that the present opposite party lodged a petition of complaint before the Learned Chief metropolitan Magistrate Calcutta against the present Petitioner alleging offence punishable u/s 181/193/199/200/209 of IPC committed by the present petitioner. On the basis of such complaint the Learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance and sent the case to the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate 6th Court Calcutta. The Complainant was examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. on SA and Learned Magistrate directed OC Hare Street, PS to conduct an investigation u/s 202 Cr.P.C.. After the report of police was filed, the Learned Magistrate was pleased to issue process against the present petitioner u/s 181/193/199/200/209 of IPC.

3. Being aggrieved by the said proceeding, the instant criminal revision has preferred for quashing.

4. In a nutshell, the brief allegation of the present OP against the present petitioner is that the parties are the contested litigants of different proceeding before the Municipal Building Tribunal Calcutta as well as before the Calcutta, High Court. The present petitioner has represented himself as constituted attorney of M/s. Binani Metals Limited in various proceeding before Hon’ble High Court in respect of civil revision and writ petition also before the Municipal Building Tribunal. It is specific allegation against the present petitioner that two power of attorneys in the name of the present petitioner was filed before the tribunal; the said two documents indicated that the present petitioner was appointed by Binani Metal Private Limited as constituted attorney in the capacity of director of Dempo Marketing Limited and not in his individual capacity.

5. It is a positive fact of the complainant that the said Dempo Markentile Limited went into voluntary liquidation on date 06.05.1996. Accordingly, on the aforesaid date, the office directorship of petitioner M.K. Jalan, in Dempo Markentile Limited stood suspended and he was no longer authorise to take any action or exercise his capacity as Director of Dempo Markentile Limited.

6. Automatically, from the aforesaid date the petitioner M.K. Jalan, also lost his powers to help Binani Metals Limited as constituted attorney, since the power granted by Binani Metals Limited in favour of the petitioner M.K. Jalan was in capacity of Director Dempo Markentile Limited and not in his individual capacity. It is the further allegation of the complaint that the petitioner M.K. Jalan, representing himself as constituted attorney, filed an affidavit in the appeal proceeding being B.P. appeal No. 22 of 2006. It was actually filed by him in his capacity of purported constituted attorney of M/s. Binani Metals Limited and also in various proceeding before the Hon’ble High Court in respect of civil revision and writ petition, though, the attorneyship of M.K. Jalan (present Petitioner) has become void owing to the provision of Section 491 of the Companies Act 1956.

7. It is further fact of the complaint that the complaint has preferred of proceeding u/s 340 of Cr.P.C. against the present petitioner before the Learned Tribunal alleging the said accused had made false statement of oath regarding his status of constituted attorney when such status had ceased to exist. It is further allegation that the present petitioner M.K. Jalan has filed similar applications before the Hon’ble High Court both in civil revisional jurisdiction and constitutional writ jurisdiction where similarly false and fo