IMPORTANT POINT
A revisional application must comply with procedural requirements; failure to do so results in dismissal without consideration of merits.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.

1. This instant revisional application under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the proceeding of C1235 of 2012 under Sections 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Calcutta and order passed therein on 2nd February, 2012 in the said proceeding, thereby the learned Court found a prima facie case against the petitioners under Sections 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code and directed for issuance of process against the petitioners.

2. The factual matrix of the instant case is that the petitioner no. 1 is the Chief Manager, Asset Recovery Management Branch, Vijaya Bank working for gain from the office of the Bank situated at 1st Floor, Temple Tower, P-17A, A.C. Avenue, Gariahat Road, Calcutta – 700 019 and petitioner no. 2 is the Deputy General Manager, Vijaya Bank, working for gain from the office of the said bank situated at 97/1, Trimurti Apartment, Park Street, 5th Floor, Calcutta – 700 016. A complaint case being C-1235 of 2012 has been initiated on the basis of complaint filed by the opposite party no. 2 before the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta alleging therein that the husband of the complainant/opposite party no. 2, namely, Mr. P. Kader M. Gani, had availed a credit facility from Vijaya Bank, Dharmatala Branch, Kolkata for Rs. 16,70,000/-on 13.11.2004 upon mortgaging one of his properties i.e. a two storied building situated at premises no. 3, Chandigarh, Dinabandhu Road, Post Office Madhyamgarm Bazar, Police Station Barasat within the District North 24-Parganas comprising of 4 cottahs of land. At that point of time, the value of the mortgaged property was Rs. 19,12,000/-. Prior to sanction of the loan, the opposite party no. 2 stood as guarantor and has signed various documents.

2a. The husband of the opposite party no. 2 repaid a sum of Rs. 3,97,000/-and thereafter a settlement was arrived in between the parties that he shall pay a total sum of Rs. 16,50,000/-as a full and final settlement. Accordingly, the husband of the opposite party no. 2 paid Rs. 1,00,000/-in two instalments of Rs. 50,000/-each on 15.09.2008 and 15.10.2008 respectively to the petitioner no. 2 on the basis of said settled amount of Rs. 16,50,000/-. Thereafter, he could not pay the remaining balance amount due to financial crises as a result the bank had initiated a process of sale of the mortgaged property at market value and after deducting its dues of Rs. 15,50,000/-assured that they would hand over the excess amount of the sale proceeds to the husband of the complainant/opposite party no. 2.

2b. It is alleged that the officials of the bank sold the mortgaged property at a price of Rs. 15,60,000/-though the current market price of the said property as on 15.09.2011 was Rs. 53,83,396/-as per the valuation report of the officer of the A.R.-II, Calcutta. With compelling circumstances, the husband of the opposite party no. 2 initiated a proceeding before the Debts Recovery Tribunal on 18.11.2011 against such illegal action of the bank officials and the same is still pending.

2c. It is further alleged that the petitioners entered into a criminal conspiracy with each other and manipulated the sale proceeds of the said property, thereby causing wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to the opposite party no. 1 by selling that property abnormally low rate than the prevailing market price, which shows the conspiracy hatched by the accused persons. Accordingly, they committed offence punishable under Sections 406/420/120B of the IPC. Upon consideration of the entire facts as aforesaid, the learned Magistrate found a prima facie case made out against the petitioners and other under Sections 406/420/120B of IPC. Learned Magistrate directed to issue process against the petitioners under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure though t