IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION Appellate Side Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta C.R.R. 1638 of 2018 Kakarlapudi Venkata Madhava Varma Versus The State of West Bengal & Anr.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ayan Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv.

Mr. S. Mondal, Adv.

Mr. Manish Shukla, Adv.

For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Satadru Lahiri, Adv.

Mr. Rajib Mullick, Adv.

Mr. Sonia Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Biswaroop Ghosh, Adv.

Heard on : 12.12.2025 Judgment on : 12.12.2025 Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:

1. This instant Criminal Revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the proceeding being Case No. CS/10505 of 2017 under Sections 406/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC) pending before the Court of the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court at Calcutta, including the Order of Cognizance and order dated March 22, 2017 passed in connection thereof.

FACTS OF THE CASE

2. The factual matrix giving rise to the revisional application is as under: -

i. The petitioner is the Managing Director of Akash Dredging and Marine Services Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘ADAMSPL’) and he is involved in the day-to-day business affairs of the said company.

ii. The opposite party no. 2 herein is a non-banking financial company and a PSU engaged in the business of financing through hypothecation/mortgage of securities/assets.

iii. Around 17th February, 2017, the opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C before the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta, alleging commission of offence of criminal breach of trust, cheating, misappropriation against the Petitioner and other thereby caused wrongful loss attracting offences under sections 406, 420, 34 and 120B of IPC against the petitioner.

iv. As per the complaint, in July, 2012, the accused person along with his associates approached the complainant company/opposite part no. 2 seeking financial assistance for the purpose of purchasing of 2 dredgers, one from the Netherlands and another indigenously purchased from Sanghi Infrastructure on the basis of loan- cum-

hypothecation, along with its accessories.

v. The complainant granted loans of Rs. 30,00,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Crore only), Rs. 3,52,00,608/- (Rupees Three Crore Fifty- Two Lakhs Six hundred and eight only) and Rs. 23,41,33,182/- (Rupees Twenty-Three Crore Forty-One Lakhs Thirty-Three Thousand One Hundred and Eighty-Two only) respectively including Exchange rate fluctuation of Rs. 5,31,21,357/- (Rupees Five Crore Thirty-One Lakhs Twenty-One Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty-Seven only). The loans were granted on the basis of the representation made by the accused person regarding their financial soundness, good reputation and generosity in the market. Personal guarantees and collateral securities were also furnished.

vi. The repayment schedule consisted of 46 monthly instalments of Rs. 88,84,600 under agreement dated HL0059769/139034 dated 1st July, 2012; 11 monthly instalments of Rs. 34,61,700/- under agreement HL0059725/16660 dated 1st July, 2012; 56 instalments under agreement HL00594949/15829 dated 15th September 2011, with varying instalment amounts as specified in the complaint.

vii. The complainant alleged that the accused persons conspired with each other and defaulted from the outset and paid only the initial few instalments after persuasion, thereby inducing the complainant to part with substantial funds with a dishonest intention from inception. Accordingly, the accused persons in furtherance of common intention, induced the complainant company to financial assistance with intention of misappropriating the property and for that reason, the complainant company had suffered wrongful loss. Accordingly, the accused persons had committed offence under Sections 420/406/34/120B of the IPC.

viii. The learned Magistrate thereafter took cognizance against the petitioner. According