IMPORTANT POINT
Criminal proceedings cannot be sustained for mere contractual disputes without evidence of fraudulent intent or misappropriation.

JUDGMENT :

Bibhas Ranjan De, J.

1. All the three revision applications have been preferred with a prayer for quashment of the proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No. 21630 of 2014 under Sections 418/420/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC), presently pending before the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, 18th Court, Calcutta.

2. The aforesaid revisional applications arising out of the self-same cause of action and having identical facts and circumstances, will be disposed of via this common judgement.

Brief introduction of the parties:-

3. With respect to CRR 2200, Petitioner Sanjiv Paul is the non-executive Chairman of M/s. Tata Metalliks D.I. Pipes Limited since 1st April, 2013. Prior to that he was Director (non-executive) of the said company.

4. With respect to CRR 316, Petitioner Shyamal Kanti Mahapatra holds the post of Assistant Divisional Manager of M/s. Tata Metalliks D.I. Pipes Limited and Santanu Banerjee is the General Manger marketing and sales of the said company.

5. With respect to CRR 3195, Petitioner Dipak Kumar Banerjee held the post of Non-Executive Director of M/s. Tata Metalliks D.I. Pipes Limited till 15th June, 2014, but thereafter he ceased to be the Non-Executive Director of the said company.

6. Mr. Amit Malviya, Proprietor of M/s. Regent Techno is the common Opposite Party no. 2 in all the three revisional applications.

Background:-

7. The instant proceeding arose out of a complaint made by the common opposite party no. 2 in all the revisional applications. On 13.06.2014, the complainant/ opposite party no. 2 filed a petition of complaint before the Court of Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (for short C.M.M.), Calcutta which was registered as Case No. C/21630 of 2014. In the complaint it was alleged inter alia that the opposite party no. 2 is the sole proprietor of a firm named and styled as M/s. Regent Techno having its registered office at 123, Zone –II M.P. Nagar, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. In 2010, the petitioners in connection with CRR 316 of 2016 came to Bhopal for discussion of liasioning work on behalf of M/s. Tata Metalliks D.I. Pipes Limited to discuss about the scope of D.I. Pipe business in Government PHED Sector. After Fruitful discussion, the abovementioned accused decided to appoint the proprietorship concern of the complainant/ opposite party no. 2 to do liasioning work on behalf of Tata Metalliks for mutual benefit. Thereby, appointing the complainant’s company as liaising dealer of the accused company. The complainant along with his father renders professional services of liasioning to their clients across various states of the country with having expertise in procuring bulk and voluminous orders from different Governmental and Non-Governmental Departments and Organizations through their liaising work and pre-tender activities against pre-decided percentage of commission on the gross value of the order so procured.

8. Looking into the credentials of the complainant’s firm, the accused appointed the firm of the complainant as Marketing Agent for the State of Madhya Pradesh in respect of marketing and selling of D.I. Pipes. A letter for appointment to that effect was issued on 29.09.2010 by the accused company. As per the terms of the said letter the accused company agreed to pay the commission to the firm of the complainant @ 2% for orders secured from Government Department and @ 1% for orders procured from private parties. It was also agreed that the Commission payable to the firm of the complainant/opposite party no. 2 can be increased as a special case in circumstances where procuring order will be a tedious and hectic job. At the time of grant of agency, it was also stated by the accused company that the firm of the complainant will also be awarded the agency for procuring orders for the State of Chattisgarh. In the mean time, due to liaising efforts of the opposite party no. 2 herein, the accused company procured bulk orders from the State of Madhya Pradesh which resulted in t