A prima facie case for criminal offences exists despite claims of delay and abuse of legal process, necessitating a full trial for resolution.

JUDGMENT :

UDAY KUMAR, J.

1. This revisional application filed by Mr. Ranjay Ghatak and Ms. Samika Ghatak, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘petitioners’), sought the extraordinary remedy of quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against them. These proceedings are encapsulated in Special Case No. 01 of 2019, which stemmed from Asansol (S) Police Station Case No. 388 of 2018, dated 17th November 2018, under Sections 420 (Cheating), 467 (Forgery of valuable security), 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (Using as genuine a forged document), 409 (Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant, or agent), and 120B (Criminal Conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, following the submission of Charge Sheet No. 197 of 2019, dated 31st July 2019. Their fundamental contention rests on the assertion that the allegations, even when taken at their highest, fail to establish a prima facie case, that the initiation of the complaint suffered from an inexplicable delay, and that the entire legal action is tainted by ulterior motives, thereby constituting a manifest abuse of the legal process. The essence of the complaint, lodged by Shri Sanjay Ghatak (Opposite Party No. 2), Director of Sisan Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., revolves around allegations of forgery, cheating, criminal breach of trust, and criminal conspiracy concerning the misappropriation of company funds.

2. The factual bedrock of this legal imbroglio originates from a complaint lodged by Mr. Sanjay Ghatak, the Director of Sisan Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainant’). According to the complainant's narrative, Ranjay Ghatak (petitioner no.1) was employed as a Project Supervisor, entrusted with the crucial responsibility of collecting cheques issued in favour of the company from various customers. The unfolding of events, however, took a discordant turn in January 2018, when petitioner no.1 allegedly absented himself from the project site without due intimation. Unsuccessful attempts by the complainant to establish contact led him to approach petitioner no.2, Ms. Samika Ghatak, petitioner no.1's wife. Her initial feigned ignorance concerning her husband's whereabouts, followed by a subsequent revelation that her husband had purportedly relocated to Bangalore for a new job, further deepened suspicions.

3. The gravity of the alleged misconduct or fraud became strikingly apparent in July/August 2018. During this period, several individuals approached the company's Asansol office, presenting "agreement for sale" documents that the complainant swiftly recognized as bearing his forged signatures. A deeper inquiry into these transactions revealed that these third parties had remitted payments, in the form of cheques, to petitioner no. 1 as earnest money against these purported agreements. Crucially, the subsequent investigation disclosed that these cheques, rather than being deposited into the company's official accounts as per standard procedure, had been credited to either the personal bank account of petitioner no.1 or a joint account held by both petitioners, raising immediate red flags concerning the integrity of the transactions.

4. Upon discovering these alarming discrepancies, the complainant initially reported the matter to the Asansol (S) Police Station. However, a formal First Information Report (FIR) was not registered at that immediate juncture. Consequently, on 27th September 2018, the complainant pursued a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before th