IMPORTANT POINT
Scuttling the criminal proceeding at the nascent stage would be unfair and illegal, and the allegations carried the essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offences.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the parties.

2. Since all the four criminal miscellaneous petitions have been filed with common prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Bistupur P.S. Case No. 51 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, all the four criminal miscellaneous petitions are disposed of by this common order.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioners- Aditya Jajodia and Rajiv Jadodia are the Managing Directors of M/s. Jai Balaji Jyoti Steels Limited. The petitioner- Sanjay Kumar Ladia is the Director of the company and the petitioner- Mayank Bothra is the authorized representative of the said company. The petitioner- Mayank Bothra approached the informant who looks after the business of his father for supply of M.S. Billet and being induced by the petitioner- Mayank Bothra, the informant transferred ?1,80,00,000/- in total on different times through bank transactions to the account of M/s. Jai Balaji Jyoti Steels Limited- a public limited company. Later on, on 09.03.2021 suddenly the petitioner- Sanjay Kumar Ladia, sent one e-mail enclosing a letter in which there was reference of two forged pro-forma invoices and on the basis of the same, Rs.28,15,200/- was demanded from the company of the informant and in the pro-forma invoices, wrong rate was mentioned and the time period for delivery of material was extended. There was no reference in the forged document regarding number and date of the purchase order of the company of the informant and the forged signature of the proprietor of the informant company was put on the pro-forma invoices to show that the materials has been accepted. Along with the FIR, the informant annexed the copy of the forged documents.

4. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Bistupur P.S. Case No. 51 of 2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of Indian Penal Code.

5. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner- Mayank Bothra submits that the informant has not gone to police station with clean hands as he has suppressed the fact that his father prior to institution of the FIR lodged Complaint Case No. 192 of 2022 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur which was withdrawn. It is next submitted by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner- Mayank Bothra that prior to lodging of the FIR, M/s. Jai Balaji Jyoti Steels Limited has filed Money Suit No. 158 of 2021 in the City Civil Court, Calcutta against the father of the informant and for wreaking vengeance, this false criminal case has been instituted against the petitioner. It is further submitted by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner- Mayank Bothra that paragraph no.11 of the complaint reveals that the Money Suit No. 158 of 2021 was filed on the basis of two debit notes which were alleged to be fraudulent ones; by the informant. It is then submitted by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner- Mayank Bothra that the father of the informant approached National Company Law Tribunal, Cuttack Bench but the same was dismissed and the appeal filed against the same was also dismissed. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy & Anr. vs. Sudha Seetharam & Anr. reported in (2019) 16 SCC 739, paragraph nos. 25, 28 and 29 of which reads as under:-

25. The suit for recovery of money was instituted by the son of the appellants against the first respondent in 2013. The complaint alleging offences under the Penal Code was filed by the first respondent belatedly in 2016. It is clear from the face of the complaint, that no amount was entrusted by the first respondent to either of the appellants and there was no dishonest inducement of the first respondent by the appellants to deliver any property. As stated by the first respondent in the comp