IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

CRR 3857 of 2022

Munaf Hussain Wadekar & Ors.

-Vs-

The State of West Bengal & Anr.

For the Petitioners : Mr. Anand Keshari, Ld. Adv.

Mr. Nipun Saxena, Ld. Adv.

Mr. Soumen Mohanty, Ld. Adv.

Mr. Agnish Basu, Ld. Adv. Mr. Vipul Vedant, Ld. Adv. Mr. Dand Mollah, Ld. Adv.

For the State : Mr. Dipankar Pramanick, Ld. Adv.

Hearing concluded on : 12.12.2025 Judgment on : 09.01.2026

UDAY KUMAR, J.: –

1. The judicial conscience of this Court is invoked under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking the quashing of proceedings in Complaint Case No. CS 62450/2021, currently pending before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Calcutta. The petitioners, Directors and key personnel of Nepal Shipping Lines Private Limited (NSPL), assail the order of cognizance dated 21.10.2021 and the subsequent issuance of process for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The matter brings into sharp focus the increasingly common phenomenon of the strategic conversion of mercantile disputes into criminal

ordeals.

2. The litigation originates from a commercial Agency Agreement between NSPL and the Complainant/Opposite Party No. 2, River Edge Shipping Pvt. Ltd. The petitioners contend that the termination of said agreement in May 2021— precipitated by a fundamental breach by the Complainant—triggered a series of retaliatory litigations. Specifically, on August 11, 2021, Petitioner No. 1 filed a criminal complaint (CNS 545/2021) against the Directors of the Opposite Party No. 2, followed by a Civil Suit (CS 192/2021) on September 18, 2021, wherein an ad-interim injunction was obtained. Subsequently, on October 21, 2021, the Opposite Party No. 2 filed the impugned complaint. The petitioners assail this as a "vicious counterblast," a "weapon of harassment," and an "arm-twisting tactic" designed to bypass the civil corridors of recovery and settle scores through criminal intimidation.

3. A primary ground of challenge rests on the alleged violation of Section 202(1)

of the Code. The petitioners assert that the Complainant practiced a "calculated deception" upon the Learned Magistrate by furnishing local Kolkata addresses for the accused, despite their actual residences being in Mumbai, Malaysia, and Nepal. It is argued that this suppression was designed to circumvent the mandatory inquiry required for out-of-jurisdiction accused, thereby rendering the issuance of process void ab initio.

4. Mr. Anand Keshari, Learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that the complaint is a "textbook case" of malicious prosecution as it suppressed the petitioners' out-station status to evade the mandatory inquiry under Section 202. Relying on the ratio in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), specifically Category 7, he asserted that proceedings instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance must be quashed.

5. Mr. Keshari further contended that the dispute is essentially a commercial disagreement over the "settlement of accounts" and "agency termination" and lacks the requisite mens rea for cheating. Finally, citing Aneeta Hadavs. Godfather Travels (2012) 5 SCC 661, he argued that the Directors cannot be held vicariously liable as the company itself has not been arraigned as an accused.

6. Mr. Dipankar Pramanick, Learned Counsel for the State countered that at the stage of taking cognizance, the Magistrate is only required to determine the existence of a prima facie case.

7. He submitted that the allegations disclose specific instances of siphoning funds and misappropriation of containers which constitute cognizable offences.

8. Regarding the addresses, he argued that they were based on available business records and that any dispute regarding the residence of the accused is a question of fact to be determined during trial, not in a summary proceeding under Section 482.

9. To adjudica