Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1075 (CAL)

Jai balaji Sponge Ltd. v. State of West Bengal

2016-12-23

DEBI PROSAD DEY

body2016
Debi Prosad Dey, J. : 1. Challenge in this revisional application is the proceeding pending before the Court of learned 4th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta being C/63475 of 2009 and the consequential orders made therein by learned Magistrate. 2. The opposite party no.2 admittedly after purchasing only 2 shares of the company submitted an application for getting certain documents but the said documents were not supplied to opposite party no.2 within specified time and that is why the petition of complaint has been filed against the company and 14 directors of such company. 3. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the opposite party no.2 has been publishing a newspaper and he is in the habit of filing such cases only in order to put pressure upon the directors of the company so that the “advertisements of such companies” be circulated through the newspaper of opposite party no.2. 4. It is further submitted that the paid up capital of the company is more than 63 crores and the opposite party no.2 investing only Rs.20/- towards the shares of the company has filed such vexatious petition of complaint against all the directors of such company. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently contended that in very many cases, this Hon’ble Court has been pleased to quash such petition of complaints filed by opposite party no.2 holding inter-alia that continuance of such proceeding would amount to abuse of process and such proceedings were filed with ulterior motive and in order to wreak the vengeance of opposite party no.2. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 has submitted that the discretion exercised by the Metropolitan Magistrate cannot be questioned in a proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the petition of complaint clearly revealed all the ingredients of the offences upon which learned Magistrate was pleased to take cognizance and issued summons against the present petitioners. 5. In CRR no. 1285 of 2010, CRR No. 332 of 2013, CRR no. 2333 of 2010 and CRR no. 2271 of 2010, this Hon’ble Court quashed the proceedings of the selfsame nature filed by opposite party no.2 against various companies for the selfsame offences holding inter-alia that the petition of complaints were filed with ulterior motive and continuance of such proceedings would amount to abuse of process. 6. 2333 of 2010 and CRR no. 2271 of 2010, this Hon’ble Court quashed the proceedings of the selfsame nature filed by opposite party no.2 against various companies for the selfsame offences holding inter-alia that the petition of complaints were filed with ulterior motive and continuance of such proceedings would amount to abuse of process. 6. All the directors have been roped in by the complainant without specifying the role of the directors in the alleged offence. Secondly, the investment of the complainant is only Rs.20/- against paid up capital of rupees 63 crores and odd in the company under reference. Thirdly, the petition of complainant does not disclose as to the role played by all the directors in the commission of alleged offence. Fourthly, the punishment prescribed in the aforesaid provisions of law as contemplated in the petition of complaint is fine only. Lastly the matter could have been disposed of by bringing the same to the notice of managing director of the company. The entire functionaries of the companies cannot be roped in a case where simply the documents were not supplied to the complainant. Having regard to the decisions of our Hon’ble Court in the criminal revision mentioned here in above, the continuance of the present proceeding being C/63475 of 2009 pending before the Court of learned fourth Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta would amount to abuse of process and accordingly the said proceeding is quashed with the direction that the opposite party no. 2/complainant is at liberty to inspect the documents in the office of the company and the company shall serve the necessary copies to opposite party no.2 on payment of necessary fees. 7. It is thus ordered that the case being C/63475 of 2009 pending before the Court of learned 4th Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta and the consequential orders thereof in such proceeding are quashed. 8. Let the copy of this order be sent to the learned 4th Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta. 9. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible