IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is the requirement of specific averments in the complaint to implicate accused persons under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the limitations on the applicability of warrant of arrest and order of attachment against a juridical person like a company.

JUDGMENT :

Rai Chattopadhyay, J.

1. Three revision cases under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, all of which arise in connection with the same complaint case, being No. CS No. 0015934 of 2015 dated July 4, 2015, preferred by the same complainant and now pending before the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court at Calcutta, are heard together and are now taken up together for adjudication by dint of this common judgment.

2. The following are the accused persons, in the said complaint case:-

(i) M/s. AKJ Mineral Limited, a company,

(ii) Sanjay Jain,

(iii) Navin Kumar Jain,

(iv) Ajay Kumar Jain,

(v) Vimal Kumar Jain,

(vi) Ankit Jain,

(vii) Hansraj Jain.

3. Amongst the said accused persons, accused persons no. 7, 5 and 6 respectively, namely (i) Hansraj Jain, (ii) Vimal Kumar Jain, (iii) Ankit Jain, have filed CRR 196 of 2016.

4. Similarly, accused persons no. 2, 3 and 4 respectively, namely, (i) Sanjay Jain, (ii) Navin Kumar Jain, (iii) Ajay Kumar Jain, have filed CRR 197 of 2016.

5. Also likewise, accused no. 1 in the said complaint case, that is, the company and a juridical person, namely, M/s. AKJ Mineral Limited is the petitioner in CRR No. 278 of 2016.

6. Basically, the petitioners respectively, in the said three criminal revision cases have challenged the maintainability of the complaint case and legality and propriety of the said complaint, as also the process undertaken by the trial Court subsequent to filing of the complaint, particularly in case of the accused company (petitioner in CRR 278 of 2016).

7. Let the complaint be looked into, at the outset.

8. M/s. G.S. Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd, represented by Sri Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, is the complainant (opposite party in all the three revisions). In a ten page long petition of complaint, the complainant has inter alia stated as follows:-

9. The complainant/O.P was desirous to purchase properties and flats at Asansole and Dover Lane, Kolkata respectively. For this he has been introduce to the petitioners/accused persons by one person, namely Sri Ramesh Saraogi. The properties were represented in very lucrative and attractive ways by the petitioners/accused persons and in this way, they have allegedly allured the complaint/O.P to part with a huge amount of money, as consideration for purchase of the same, pursuant to an agreement for sell, executed between them. It is stated that the total consideration amount was fixed to the tune of Rs. 6 Crores whereas a sum of Rs. 4,05,00,000/-was paid by the complainant, out of the said total consideration amount, on the two dates, that is, January 3, 2011 and January 4, 2011 respectively. Petitioners/accused persons duly acknowledged the receipt of the said money by issuing money receipts. Certain documents pertaining to the two properties intended to be purchased, were handed over by the petitioners/accused persons, to the complaint/O.P. The petitioners also agreed that a duly registered agreement for sale would be executed, in due course of time.

10. After receiving the money as above, in January 2011, the petitioners/accused persons, have in the month of September 2011, informed the complainant/O.P that due to certain problems, they are unable to execute the sale deed in respect of the said properties, without however elaborating the nature of that problem. They also intended to return back the said amount of money, paid in advance to them.

11. The situation took a different turn, when in April 2014, the complainant/O.P on his own found out that, in spite of accepting and acknowledging advance amount of many for sale of the concerned properties, the petitioners/accused persons had tried to divest the said assets to some other persons than the complainant. As an endeavor on their part to return back the amount of money already bestowed to them pursuant to the agreement for sale, the accused persons had issued two cheques to the complainant being nos. 117588 and 117590 respectively, dated April 8, 2014, of the amounts of Rs.2,50,00,000/-and Rs. 1,55,00