Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 557 (CAL)

Partha Deb Roy v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2008-05-16

ASHIM KUMAR ROY

body2008
Judgment :- (1.) THIS is an application for quashing of a First Information Report relating to new Market Police Station (J2/d. D.) Case No. 85/07 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120b of the Indian Penal Code. (2.) HEARD Mr. Arup Chatterjee, the learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the defacto-complainant as well as Mr. Sanat Chowdhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. Perused the Case Diary. (3.) MR. Arup Chatterjee, the learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted before this Court that the petitioner is absolutely innocent and no way involved in the commission of the offences as alleged or at all. He has no connection with the service provided by the accused no. 2 through his proprietorship concern Regional Resource Development Organization. He is only one of the Promoter-Director of the two companies promoted by his parents. The complainant have intentionally and deliberately made various misrepresentations and misleading facts in the petition of complaint. (4.) ON the other hand, both Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, the learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the complainant as well as Mr. Sanat chowdhury, the learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the State strongly opposed the prayer for quashing of the First Information Report. According to them that not only the First Information Report clearly makes out the commission of alleged offences, then also, during the course of investigation police has collected sufficient materials to show the petitioners involvement in the commission of the alleged offences. Mr. Chowdhury, the learned Counsel of the State referred to the Case Diary and draws the courts attention to the materials collected by the police against the petitioner during the course of investigation. (5.) I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions of the parties. Having gone through the First Information Report, I find the same is based on following allegations; the complainants company while was looking out for finance for their business came across with the advertisement of Regional Resources development Organization which has its own website in the internet. (5.) I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions of the parties. Having gone through the First Information Report, I find the same is based on following allegations; the complainants company while was looking out for finance for their business came across with the advertisement of Regional Resources development Organization which has its own website in the internet. In the said website the accused company represented that same was a Government sanction body working in close collaboration with the Ministry of Finance, Government of India as also with the Reserve Bank of India and the said organization of the accused was a Government recognized body for promoting entrepreneurs by providing finance and arranging subsidy and other benefits from the Government and other institution. Thereafter, the officers of the complainants company visited the office of Regional Resources Development Organization where they met mr. Partha Roy @ Partha Deb Roy, the Director, the petitioner herein Mrs. Shibani Roy, the Chief Executive Officer and Soumitra Roy of the said company. When Partha Deb Roy informed the complainant that it was linked with Asian development Bank and also represented that he was working with Reserve Bank of India and he is an adviser of the Finance Ministry, Government of India. By this way the aforesaid person along with other accuseds produced some documents purportedly issued by the Reserve Bank of India, NABARD, Asian development Bank, Ministry of Finance, Government of India which the complainant subsequently came to know are all forged and fabricated documents and thereby dishonestly and fraudulently induced the complainant and by deceiving them obtained a sum of Rs. 60. 20 lakhs as participation fees, processing fees and other fees. But in spite of such a huge amount they have not made any arrangement for providing loan and finance to the complainants company nor return the money so obtained and misappropriated the entire amount. (6.) I have also carefully gone through the Case Diary and have found the police by now has collected sufficient materials in support of the allegations made in the First Information Report. (6.) I have also carefully gone through the Case Diary and have found the police by now has collected sufficient materials in support of the allegations made in the First Information Report. During investigation it was further found that Reserve Bank of India made paper publications in the leading newspapers that the members of the public and public entrepreneurs have been defrauded and duped by the said Regional Resources Development Organization by making false representation that they are engaged in project and development financing and on the strength of various forged and fabricated documents and under the said publications the members of the public entrepreneurs were alerted by the reserve Bank of India. During investigation various forged letters allegedly issued by the office of the Prime Minister of India and many other incriminating documents were also seized by the police showing the petitioners complicity in the commission of the offences. (7.) IN view of the allegations made in the FIR and materials collected by the police during the course of investigation it cannot be said that no case has been made out as against the present petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioners prayer for quashing of the FIR and the investigation commenced thereupon stands declined. The instant criminal revisional application has no merit and stands dismissed.