IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is the mandatory nature of compliance with Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before issuing summons to an alleged offender residing outside the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

Rai Chattopadhyay, J.

1. The criminal revision cases No. CRR 2145 of 2016 and CRR 2188 of 2016 have been heard together and are now taken up together for adjudication by this common judgment.

2. Both the criminal revisions are to challenge the complaint dated 31/12/2009, which has been registered as the complaint case No. 65555 of 2009 under sections 420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case is now pending before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 16th Court at Calcutta. The orders made in the said case subsequent to filing of the complaint as above, are also challenged. The petitioners in both the criminal revision cases have prayed for quashing of the entire proceeding along with the complaint, as mentioned above.

3. The moot question for consideration of this Court in this case would be the scope and extent of applicability of the provision of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, before dealing with the same one has to look into the nature of allegations as has been reflected through the complaint, as above.

4. One Rajkumar Sen/opposite party no. 2 is the complainant. The petitioner in criminal revision No. CRR 2145 of 2016 is the accused person No. 3 in the complaint. The petitioner in criminal revision No. CRR 2188 of 2016 is the accused No. 2 therein. The contentions made therein, may be summarised in the following manner:-

Accused No. 1 is a company namely M/s. Everest Agro Industries Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter refered to as “Everest”). Accused No. 4 is another company namely Sencose Food Products Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter refered to as “Sencose”). Accused No. 2 (petitioner in CRR 2188 of 2016) and accused No. 3 (petitioner in CRR 2145 of 2016) are the directors of “Everest”. Two of the directors of “Sencose” have also been arrayed as the accused persons in the said complaint. They are, however, not parties in these two revision applications.

Pursuant to an advertisement in the English newspaper ‘The Statesman’ dated 21/12/1989, the complainant (opposite party in both the revisions) responded and expressed interest vide letter dated 22/12/1989, for making investment in “Everest” by way of hypothecation and pledge of fixed deposits and share certificates. As against the same he desired to obtain unsecured loan from “Sencose”.

On 08/04/1991 an agreement was executed, being “Everest” and “Sencose” at one part and the group of companies of the complainant, on the other part. The agreement was executed to make investments by the complainant with the accused companies, named above.

5. Thus, the complainant says, that valuable securities have been parted with by him being deceitfully influenced and prompted by the two accused companies and their directors/persons-in-charge of the day to day business of the companies.

6. Later, on 26/08/2009, the complainant, after obtaining certified copy of the balance sheet of “Sencose”, could come to know that the entire hypothecated fixed deposits and company’s shares kept with the accused company pursuant to the agreement executed between them as above, were not shown by the accused company in their said balance sheet. Allegedly, the present petitioners being the directors of the accused companies had illegally transferred all the amount on account of hypothecated shares, securities and bank deposits, without any knowledge of the complainant and in violation of the terms of the agreements.

It has been further alleged that inspite of specific request by the complaint neither the said hypothecated things or its equivalent has been returned to the complainant by the accused/petitioners. Hence, the complainant has alleged misappropriation by the accused persons of the entrustment of valuable securities of him made to the accused persons, and lodged the said complaint.

7. The complainant was registered as complaint case No. 65555 of 2009 under Sections 420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

8. It is necessary that certain orders of the Magistrat