IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that applications under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. must be supported by affidavits and prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) to prevent abuse of the legal process.

JUDGMENT :

Bibhas Ranjan De, J.

1. At the very outset, it would be pertinent to mention that both the preferred revision applications having same and identical facts and circumstances and originating out of the self-same cause of action shall be disposed of via this common judgment.

2. Both the revision applications were put into motion via one written complaint made by the opposite party no. 2, namely, Manohar Malani under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) with the Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (for short A.C.J.M.), Serampore who in turn forwarded the same to Uttarpara Police Station for investigation which gave rise to Uttarpara Police Station Case No. 284/2016 dated 23.05.2016 under Sections 204/406/409/420/466/467/468/469/471/474/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC).

Brief introduction of the parties alongwith backdrop:

3. With respect to CRR 3319 both the petitioners are the wives of the petitioners in connection with CRR 2578/18 /directors of Quick Heal Techonologies Ltd./ Company.

4. With respect to CRR 2578/18 petitioners no. 1 and 2 are directors of the company, petitioner no. 3 is the company itself, petitioner no. 4 is a practicing chartered accountant and petitioner no. 5 is the company secretary.

5. In both the revisional applications the common opposite party no, 2 is the de facto complainant who lodged a written complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. alleging inter alia that the complainant/opposite party no. 2 since 1994 was in acquaintance with the petitioner no. 1 & 2 of CRR 2578/18. The common opposite party no. 2 in connection with both the revisional applications was running a company under the name and style of National Computer Systems (for short NCS) which was engaged by the petitioners no. 1 & 2 of CRR 2578/18 to promote and market the products made by them.

6. It is further alleged that in the year 1999 when the economic condition of the petitioner no. 3/company worsened, petitioners no. 1 & 2 of CRR 2578/18 along with others approached the common opposite party no. 2 with the proposal of investing in the equity of the said company. Relying on the assurances and trusting the integrity of the said company the complainant/opposite party no. 2 herein along with his family members made investment in the said company totaling to an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- in the year 2000 during August-September. In lieu of the investment made by the opposite party no. 2 the said company allotted certain shares in the equity share capital of the company at the rate of Rs. 10/- each. And also appointed the opposite party no. 2 as the director of the said company. But, around December, 2002 due to differences of opinion between opposite party no. 2 and petitioners no. 1 & 2 of CRR 2578/18, the complainant/opposite party no. 2 resigned from the Board of Directors. Albeit the complainant and his family members remained share-holders of the successor of interest of the said company.

7. But, on February, 2016 the said company/petitioner no. 3 of CRR 2578/18 published a Red Herring Prospectus (for short RHP) expressing their intention to offer the shares of the said company to the public. On careful perusal of the RHP the opposite party no. 2 found that his name along with the names of his other family members did not feature in the list of the existing share-holders of the company. Upon receipt of the information when the opposite party no. 2 contacted the company, no fruitful clarification was given. As a result, the complainant after going through several forums obtained certified copies of the balance sheet for the year 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2003-2004 of the company and on inspection of the same it was revealed that the name of the opposite party no. 2 and his other family members were reflected in the list of share-holders filed along with the annual return for the year 2001. It was further alleged that the accused converted the shares belonging to the opposite party no. 2 and