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 materials produced in a complaint proceeding.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Vimal Kirti Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 and Mr. Ravi Prakash, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 30.05.2019 in connection with Complaint Case No. 409 of 2019, whereby cognizance has been taken for the offences under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, and the case is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, at Giridih.

3. The present complaint has been filed alleging therein that a Memorandum of Understanding (M.O.U.) has been signed by Gunwant Singh Saluja (complainant) and Sumit Kumar Kejriwal (alleged accused) on 28.02.2011 for sale and purchase the company namely, Swati Concast and Power Private Limited. In which Sumit Kumar Kejriwal is seller of the said company. Prior of date 28.02.2011, Sumit Kumar Kejriwal was the Director of the said Swati Concast and Power Private Limited Company and he was willing to sell the said company to Gunwant Singh Saluja for a sum of Rupees 20 crores 71 lakh. As per Memorandum of Understanding both the parties agreed and total payment sum of Rupees 10 crores 15 lakh has been paid by the complainant Gunwant Singh Saluja through RTGS as well as Bank account in favour of Truf Advertising Marketing Company Private Limited, Amit Kumar Kejriwal, Swati Mining Pvt. Ltd. and Gunwant Singh Saluja and Balvinder Singh was appointed as Managing Director and Director of said Swati Concast and Power Private Limited Company by Amit Kumar Kejriwal and Sumit Kumar Kejriwal. Thereafter, the complainant Gunwant Singh Saluja started his role in said Swati Concast and Power Private Limited Company as Managing Director and Balvinder Singh started his role as Director in the said Swati Concast and Power Limited Company. In the meantime, investment has been done by the complainant Gunwant Singh Saluja in the said company and work of said company was restarted. It is also alleged that when Memorandum of Understanding was signed between both the parties that time said Swati Concast and Power Private Limited Company was in dormant condition. After appointment of Gunwant Singh Saluja and Balvinder Singh as Managing Director and Director of the said company the work of the company was restarted.

4. After appointment of the complainant Gunwant Singh Saluja and Balvinder Singh as Managing Director and Director of the said company, the Form 32 was forwarded to Board of Registrar of companies. On resolution dated 01.07.2011 complainant was authorized signatory with respect to transaction to be made with the United Bank of India, Giridih Branch. On 18.01.2013, a cheque was drawn upon the United Bank of India which was dishonoured by the bank taking plea that, all the cheques have been cancelled by the company and a new cheque book has been issued. Upon correspondence being made with the bank, the bank did disclose that his authorization has been cancelled, thought he had never resigned from the company. Subsequently, it got transpired that his signature was copied and pasted over a piece of paper which was converted into a letter of resignation and the same letter was filed along with Form 32. Thus, it has been alleged that both the persons namely, Amit Kumar Kejriwal and Sumit Kumar Kejriwal did submit Form 32 enclosing therewith the forged resignation letter.

5. Mr. Vimal Kirti Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the F.I.R. has been registered on 30.01.2013 with regard to allegation in which Final Form has been submitted on 31.07.2018. He took the Court to the Final Form annexed with the petition and submits that Final Form was to the effect that the case is civil in nature. He fu