Judgment R.K. Bag, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision challenging the order dated January 27, 2009 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in Criminal Revision No. 185 of 2008 arising out G.R. Case No. 1957 of 2001, by which the learned Judge of the court below discharged the accused persons from the criminal case. 2. The petitioner being the de facto complainant filed petition of complaint before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detective Department, Lal Bazar, Calcutta on August 7, 2001 stating, inter alia, that the petitioner, his brother and father are the directors of the company named M/s. Madan Grey Iron Casting Pvt. Ltd and that the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 being the accused of the criminal case are the directors of the company named M/s. Rose Island Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. The accused, Ram Kuber Prasad and Rakesh Prasad are the brothers of younger sister’s husband of the petitioner. The eldest sister of the petitioner was also married to the cousin of the accused Ram Kuber Prasad and as such the petitioner is the close relative of the accused persons. Both the company of the petitioner and the company of the accused persons used to supply Cast Iron Sleeper Plates to the Indian Railways. The company of the petitioner supplied 603 M/T of C.S.T. 9, Sleeper Plates to North Frontier Railways and there was outstanding bill of Rs.38,20,642.46 (Rupees thirty eight lakh twenty thousand six hundred forty two and paisa forty six) only from the Railways. In view of the close relationship between the petitioner and the accused persons, the petitioner entrusted the accused Ram Kuber Prasad to pursue his outstanding dues of Rs.38,20,642.46 (Rupees thirty eight lakh twenty thousand six hundred forty two and paisa forty six) only in the office of North Frontier Railways, Guahati, Assam on behalf of the company of the petitioner. The accused, Ram Kuber Prasad collected the cheque from the office of the Railways on 14.09.1999, but did not disclose the same to the petitioner even when the petitioner was making repeated queries about the outstanding bill of Rs.38,20,642.46 (Rupees thirty eight lakh twenty thousand six hundred forty two and paisa forty six only). On 21.01.2000, the petitioner came to learn from his friend Dr. On 21.01.2000, the petitioner came to learn from his friend Dr. Anjan Goswami of Guahati that the cheque bearing No.099442 dated 14.09.1999 of Rs.33,00.609.00 (Rupees Thirty Three Lakh Six Hundred Nine) only had been issued in favour of the company of the petitioner and the same was drawn on Reserve Bank of India, Calcutta. On making enquiry from the Reserve Bank of India, Calcutta, the petitioner came to learn that one current account no. 1171 was opened in the name of the company of the petitioner in the Union Bank of India, Bagbazar Branch, Calcutta and the said cheque was encashed after keeping balance of Rs.2,89,984.00 (Rupes two lakh eighty nine thousand nine hundred eighty four) only in the said account. It is relevant to point out that the accused persons being close relatives of the petitioner had access to the office of the petitioner. The petitioner had filled up the account opening form for opening account of the company of the petitioner in the Union Bank of India, Bagbazar Branch, Calcutta and pasted his photograph on the said account opening form which was kept in the office of the company of the petitioner. After this incident, the petitioner searched for the said account opening form in the office but the same was found missing. There was talk of compromise between the petitioner and the accused persons and as such the petitioner agreed to withdraw the balance amount kept in the current account no. 1171 of Union Bank of India, Bagbaar Branch, Calcutta. However, no compromise took place and as such the entire incident is reported to the police with prayer to take appropriate action. 3. On the basis of the said petition of complaint, the police registered Amherst Street Police Station Case No. 202 dated 29.08.2001 and started investigation. Ultimately the charge-sheet was submitted against the two accused persons on 14.08.2003 under Sections 120B/419/420/467/468 of the Indian Penal Code. These two accused persons are the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 of the instant criminal revision. 4. The accused persons filed an application under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court, Calcutta in connection with G.R. Case No. 1597 of 2001 for their discharge and the said application was disposed of by learned Magistrate on 01.10.2008. 2 and 3 of the instant criminal revision. 4. The accused persons filed an application under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court, Calcutta in connection with G.R. Case No. 1597 of 2001 for their discharge and the said application was disposed of by learned Magistrate on 01.10.2008. The learned Magistrate rejected the application filed by the accused persons under Sections 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by holding that a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons under Sections 120B/419/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code and fixed the next date on 10.11.2008 for framing of charge. The accused persons preferred criminal revision No. 185 of 2008 before the court of learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta challenging the order dated 01.10.2008 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court, Calcutta in G.R. Case No. 1597 of 2001. The learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta allowed the said criminal revision by setting aside the order dated 01.10.2008 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court, Calcutta and discharged the accused persons on the ground, inter alia, that there is no evidence to prosecute the accused persons under Sections 120B/380/406/468/471/420 of the Indian Penal Code, that there was a compromise between the petitioner and the accused persons and the petitioner being the de facto complainant filed a petition of complaint to that effect before the Court of Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta at the time of hearing of the application for bail of the accused persons and that the account opening form containing the signature and the photograph of the petitioner is found to be genuine. The petitioner has challenged the said order dated 27.01.2009 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in Criminal Revision No. 185 of 2008 on the grounds, inter alia, that learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court did not take into consideration the materials collected by the investigating agency in proper perspective, that the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court failed to consider that the specimen signatures and photographs of two directors of the company of the petitioner were forged by the accused persons and that learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta also failed to appreciate that no effective compromise between the petitioner and the accused persons took place though the petitioner filed an application before the court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta in this respect for the purpose of granting bail of the accused persons who happened to be closed relative of the petitioner. 5. Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the accused persons collected the cheque of Rs.33,00,609.00/- from the office of North Frontier Railway, Guahati, Assam surreptitiously taking advantage of letter of authority from the petitioner and opened current account No. 1171 in the name of the company of the petitioner with the Union Bank of India, Bagbazar Branch, Calcutta by stealing away the account opening from containing the signature and the photograph of the petitioner from the office of the company of the petitioner and by forging the signature of Madan Lal Shaw, i.e. the father of the petitioner and Subodh Kumar Jayaswal, i.e. the brother of the petitioner who happened to be the other directors of the company of the petitioner. By pointing out the report of the handwriting expert of the Questioned Documents Examination Bureau, C.I.D., West Bengal, Mr. Ganguly submits that the handwriting expert has clearly pointed out that the signature of the brother and father of the petitioner were forged by both the accused persons on the account opening from of the bank for the purpose of misappropriation of the huge amount of money. Mr. Ganguly, points out that the learned Judge of the court below has failed to take into consideration the report of the handwriting expert at the time of discharging the accused persons. Mr. Mr. Ganguly, points out that the learned Judge of the court below has failed to take into consideration the report of the handwriting expert at the time of discharging the accused persons. Mr. Ganguly also submits that the application for compromise submitted by the petitioner before the court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at the time of granting bail to the accused persons is not germane to the issue of discharge of the accused persons. Mr. Ganguly has also relied on two decisions reported in (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 996 and the decision reported in (2009) 1 C Cr. L R (SC) 228 in order to point out the principle of law for the purpose of framing of the charge. 6. Mr. Amarta Ghose, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State submits that there are enough materials in the case diary to prima facie, establish the charge against the accused persons under Sections 120B/419/420/467/468 of the Indian Penal Code, but learned Judge of the court below did not take into consideration the materials available in the case diary at the time of discharge of the accused persons. 7. Mr. Tirthankar Ghosh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 submits that there was compromise between the petitioner and the opposite parties and the petitioner submitted an application before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta to that effect at the time of granting bail of the accused persons and learned Chief Judge has considered everything in the background of compromise effected by the parties. Mr. Ghosh also submits that there is no evidence of withdrawal of money from the account by the accused persons and as such learned Judge of the court below has rightly discharged the accused persons from the criminal charge. 8. Having heard the learned counsels representing the respective parties and on consideration of the materials on record, I find that the petitioner, his father-Madan Lal Shaw and his brother-Subodh Kumar Jayaswal run the business under the name and style of M/s. Madan Grey Iron Casting Pvt. Ltd. Similarly, the opposite party accused Ram Kuber Prosad and his brother-Rakesh Prosad also run the business under the name and style of M/s. Rose Island Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. It is established from the materials on record that the petitioner has close relationship with the accused persons. It is also established from record that the company run by the petitioner and the company run by the accused persons supply cast iron sleeper plates to the Indian Railways and as such they are dealing in the same kind of business. There are materials available in the case diary to indicate that the petitioner had authorised the accused Ram Kuber Prosad to deal with the tender documents of the company of the petitioners. It is evident from the statement of the witness Tapan Kumar Saha and Subrata Das and from the seizure list dated 11.09.2001 that the account opening form in the Union Bank of India, Bagbazar Branch was submitted by forging the signature and photographs of the father and the brother of the petitioner. The report of the handwriting expert marked annexures-P 2 to the application for criminal revision clearly indicates that the signature of Madan Lal Shaw, the father of the petitioner in the account opening form was forged by the accused Ram Kuber Prosad and the signature of Suboodh Kumar Jayaswal, the brother of the petitioner in the account opening form was forged by the accused Rakesh Prosad. This aspect of the evidence collected by the investigating agency was not at all taken into consideration by the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court at the time of discharging the accused persons from the criminal charge. In the absence of any document, I cannot persuade myself to rely on the submission made on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 that there was compromise between the petitioner and the accused persons and as such learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court acted illegally in considering the fact of compromise between the parties for the purpose of discharging the accused persons. Learned Magistrate formed the opinion that a prima facie case is made out under Sections 120B/419/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code and all those offences do not come under the ambit of Section 320 of the Code Criminal Procedure and as such the question of compounding the offences by the petitioner is also not legally permissible. In view of my above findings and on consideration of the materials available in the case diary, I am constrained to hold that learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court acted in excess of jurisdiction conferred on him by law by discharging the accused persons on 27.01.2009 in criminal revision no. In view of my above findings and on consideration of the materials available in the case diary, I am constrained to hold that learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court acted in excess of jurisdiction conferred on him by law by discharging the accused persons on 27.01.2009 in criminal revision no. 185 of 2008. 9. The proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in paragraph-11 of the case of “Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Sanjoy Chowdhary & Ors.” reported in (2009) 1 C Cr.LR (SC) 228 is that the court has to see while considering the question of framing the charge as to whether the materials brought on record could reasonably connect the accused with the trial. The principle of law enunciated by the Apex Court in Paragraph-39 of the case “Indu Jain –versus- State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.” reported in (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 996 is that the court is not required to go into the details of the investigation but to only arrive at a prima facie finding on the materials made available as to whether a charge could be sustained as recommended in the charge sheet. In view of above proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, I am of the opinion, that a prima facie case is established against the accused persons for the purpose of framing of charge under Sections 120B/419/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code. The logical inference is that the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta on 27.01.2009 in criminal revision No. 185 of 2008 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the said order passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court is set aside. This criminal revision is disposed of. 10. The department is directed to send down a copy of this order to the learned court below for favour of information and necessary action. 11. Criminal Section is directed to deliver urgent Photostat certified copy of this order to the learned advocate of the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.