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

HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS.

CRR 926 OF 2015 M/s. GODREJ AGROVET LTD.

VS.

GOBINDA CHANDRA KUNDU & ANR.

For the petitioner: Ms. Shalu Gupta Md. N. Alam Ms. Sruti Dey Last Heard On: 18.03.2025 Judgement On: 26.03.2025 CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J:-

1. This is an application under Section 483, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioner company for an appropriate order in connection with a proceeding filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 being complaint case number C- 244 of 2012 (M/s Godrej Agrovet limited company vs. Gobinda Chandra Kundu) before the Learned Court of ACJM Bidhannagar.

2. Facts of the case in a nutshell is that the complainant/petitioner, M/S Godrej Agrovet limited, having its registered office at Firoz Shah Nagar, Eastern Expressway, Vikhroli East, Mumbai being represented by Mr. Anupam Chakraborty, the senior legal officer duly empowered and authorized by virtue of power of attorney had filed his revisional application on behalf of the complainant company. The opposite party number 1 being the accused is a distributor of the complainant/petitioner company, who deals with various Agro products of the complainant company. In course of business company and the opposite party number 1, the opposite party number 1 incurred a monitory liability and for discharging the same, the opposite party number 1 issued one Account payee cheque in favour of the petitioner/complaint company, being number 293566 dated July 9, 2012 for ₹7,66,751.30 only, drawn on UCO Bank Mayapur Branch, Arambagh, within the district of Hooghly.

3. The said cheque was deposited for clearance before HDFC bank Ltd. at Eternity building, Salt Lake, Sector -V, Calcutta within its validity period and the cheque was dishonored and returned to the complaint company along with a return memo with remark “fund insufficient”.

4. The petitioner/ complainant company thereafter issued a statutory demand notice after receiving the said return memo through the learned advocate Ajit Singh on July 18, 2012 under speed post with acknowledgement due. The said notice was duly received by the opposite party number 1 on July 24, 2012. In spite of receiving the said, notice the opposite party number 1 did not pay the cheque amount to the petitioner or his advocate.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under section 138 read with

141 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 on July 27, 2012 before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bidhannagar, which was registered as complaint case number C-244 of 2012. The learned court after taking cognizance and after completion of S/A pursuant to the provision as enumerated under Section 200 of the code of criminal procedure, issued summons against the opposite party number 1 . The petitioner filed the requisites immediately before the learned court.

6. After that the opposite party number 1/accused person entered appearance and prayed for bail.The said case was fixed on December 21, 2012 under section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the opposite party number on1/accused person pleaded, “not guilty.” The learned court fixed the date for evidence on 2013, but due to some unforeseen reason, the complainant company filed the affidavit in chief on September 3, 2014.

7. The further case of the petitioner is that the learned court was pleased to return the petition being number C – 244 of 2012 to the petitioner in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in Dasharath Roop Singh Rathore versus state of Maharashtra (2014)9 SCC ,129 with liberty to file the complaint before the court having jurisdiction on 16.12.14 i:e immediately after the Judgement of Dasharath (supra) Accordingly, the petitioner/complainant company filed the same before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Arambag , on January 14, 2015, 8. The learned court, vide its or