IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:-

HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS.

CRR 818 of 2015 SEKHAR SHARMA Vs.

STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR.

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

Mr. Arpit Choudhury, Adv.

Mr. Anil Choudhury, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Imran Ali, Adv.

Ms. Debjani Sahu, Adv.

Last Heard on : 19.03.2025 Judgement on : 04.04.2025 CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J. :-

1. This is an application under Section 482 of CRPC for quashing of the proceeding being G.R case No. 35 of 2012 arising out of Hare Street P.S case No. 6 dated January 2, 2012 under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending before the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta.

Fact of the case

2. Briefly stated, the Case of the petitioner/accused is that Calcutta Chroma Type Private Ltd. a company duly incorporated under the Company having its registered office at 76/2, Christopher Road, Kolkata 700046, running since 1933. The petitioner is the Managing Director of the said company. The company was in need of paper of a particular size and weight which was not regularly manufactured by any paper mill and was not therefore available freely in the local market.

3. The Opposite Party no.2 KCT Trading Private Limited was dealing in the business of selling papers in the market since long and earned a good repute in the market. The management of Opposite Party no. 2 had approached the Chroma Type Company sometime in July, 2018 for supply of such paper. It was made clear to the Opposite Party no. 2 by the petitioner that the regularity in supply to be paramount since there exists stiff competition in the printing industry, and therefore, the company relied on bulk business. The Opposite Party no.2 accepted such proposal and the company had made payments to the Opposite Party no. 2, every month from October 2010.

4. In April 2011, the company asked the Opposite Party no. 2 for credit notes to settle their accounts vide an email dated 21 April 2011, but the Opposite Party no.2 did not correspond with the petitioner. The petitioner duly informed Mr. Dipanjan Bhattacharya and Mr. Ashok Tandon of the Opposite Party, no.2 /company, about the regular delays and shortages in supply of monthly order on a daily basis over phone, through emails on various dates. During the eight month period from September 2010 to April 2011, the Opposite Party no.2 was to supply 1600 reams of special size paper but only 594; Rims of paper were supplied, resulting in a shortfall of 1006 rims. The huge shortfall had to be made up by the company by purchasing standard size paper from paper market locally at much higher rates causing huge losses to the petitioner company. Despite informing the Opposite Party, no.2 about the huge losses faced by the company on account of the regular delay on the part of the Opposite Party no.2 only assurances were given to improve their supply, quality and quantity wise. Ultimately, the petitioner company stopped doing business with the Opposite Party no. 2 sometime in April

2011.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that in or around September, 2013, the petitioner came to learn that he was wanted in connection with the above mentioned criminal case when the police authority informed about the First Information Report registered against him pursuant to the order dated December 12, 2011 passed by the court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta. The investigating agency also filed charge sheet under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner.

6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned proceedings of GR case number 35 of 2012 arising out of Hare Street Police Station case no.6 dated January 2, 2012, this revisional application has been filed for quashing such proceeding.

Submissions

7. The learned Senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the allegations levelled in the first information report suffer