Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE
Vineeta Burman – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
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
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 ....
The court maintained that an FIR must not be quashed at an initial stage unless no prima facie case is established, even if the allegations suggest civil nature.
The court held that an FIR must disclose an offence for proceedings to continue, and allegations, if taken as true, warranted further investigation and trial.
Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. Quashing of a complaint should rather be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule. Considering the allegations made in the c....
Court held that breaches of contract, if primarily civil in nature, do not implicate criminal liability unless fraudulent intent is evident from the outset.
The court can take cognizance based on a protest petition and act under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The acceptance of the final form does not debar the Magistrate from taking cognizance based on the ....
A defendant cannot be implicated in conspiracy or forgery solely based on presence at the scene without specific evidence of involvement in fraudulent acts.
The court emphasized the importance of ongoing investigation and examination of witnesses in determining the outcome of the case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
