The court affirmed that criminal liability for offenses such as forgery and impersonation may arise from corporate disputes, and ongoing civil proceedings do not negate the applicability of criminal law.

JUDGMENT :

AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.

1. Petitioners herein have sought for quashing of proceeding being GR case no. 670 of 2019 pending before learned ACJM, Siliguri, arising out of Siliguri Cyber Crime PS case No. 46 of 2019 under section 490/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with section 66/66C of the information Technology (I.T.) Act, 2000. Simultaneously petitioners also prayed for quashing of other proceeding being GR case of 670 of 2019 presently pending before learned ACJM, Bidhannagore, arising out of Bidhannagore cyber crime PS case no. 75 of 2019 under sections 418/419/420/465/468/471/506/120B/34 of the IPC read with section 66/66C of the I.T. Act 2000. Though the facts alleged in both the cases are same but two Applications pertains to complaints lodge by two separate FIR maker stated to be erstwhile directors of company.

2. Petitioners’ case is that the petitioner no.1, 2 and 3 are the directors of Greenzenbio Pvt. Ltd. (in short company). In the said company petitioner no.1 is having 46.12% share-holding and petitioner no.2 is holding 43.65% share.

3. Their further contention is that the petitioner no.2 had come up with the idea of setting of the said company in Siliguri in 2008 and petitioner no.2 introduced his brother as the initial share holder and promoter/director of the said company. In 2007, husband of opposite party no.2 (CRR 2243 of 2022) had approached the petitioner no.2, with the object of entering into business relationship with the petitioner no.1 and his brother. Accordingly opposite party no.2 herein in CRR 2243 of 2022 Laxmi Tantia was appointed as director of the said company on 2nd May, 2007 along with one Mahesh Kumar Khaitan, thereby the group of said Tantia held 66.66% shareholding in the said company and the Barman family had 33.33% of the paid up share-capital in the said company. At the relevant point of time, the said company had three directors namely Monohar Kant Barman i.e. brother of petitioner no.2, shri Mahesh Kumar Khaitan i.e. uncle of Tantia’s and the opposite party no.2 i.e. Laxmi Tantia. In fact from 2009 till 2015, the affairs of the said company was looked by shri Manohar Kant Barman. Though the said opposite party no.2 was one of the directors of the said company but the petitioner no.1 and 2 had to look after entire day to day business of the said company.

4. Petitioners further case is that said Manohar Kant Barman had tendered his resignation on 1st June, 2015 because of his personal issues and the petitioner no.1 was appointed as a director in the Board of the company on 29th September, 2015. After the resignation of shri Manohar Kant Barman, the petitioner no.1 and 2 were looking after the business of the said company and the opposite party no.2 Laxmi Tantia Became a sleeping director of the said company without having much interest in the affairs of the business of the said company. Thereafter on 16th August, 2016 Shri Mahesh Kumar Khaitan had tendered his resignation as a director of the said company and in his place Shri Binod AjitSaria (complainant of CRR 161/2022) was appointed as the director of the said company on 29th September, 2016.

5. Petitioners specific allegation is that the dispute arose between the group of petitioner no.1 and 2 and the opposite p