JUDGMENT : Subhendu Samanta, J. 1. This is an application u/s 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the proceeding of a complaint case being No. CS 0054927 of 2016 u/s 420/465/468/471 read with Section 120B of the IPC pending before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate 15th Court Calcutta and also challenge the order dated 11.04.2017 passed by the Learned Magistrate in the said complaint case for issuance of process against the present petitioners. 2. The brief fact of the case is that the present petitioner No. 2 and 3 are the Directors and the petitioner No. 4 is the Managing Director of the petitioner No. 1 Company. The petitioner No 1 company is subsidiary Company of HDFC Bank, is non-banking Financial Corporation inter alia engaged in the business of providing loans. The instant complaint case was registered on the basis of a petition of complaint filed by the present opposite party No. 1 before the Learned Court of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate 15th Court Calcutta on 29th January 2016 alleging offence punishable u/s 420/465/468/471 read with Section 120B of IPC. 3. The brief fact of the petition of complaint is as follows: 4. That the petitioners nos. 2 to 4 and one Venkatraman Srinivasan and Smita Affinwala, are the Directors of the petitioner no.1 company and are engaged in the day to day affairs of the petitioner no. 1 company. 5. That the petitioner no. 1 had sent a notice dated 15.09.2015 to one Ravilal Hirala Exports Pvt. Ltd. demanding a total outstanding loan amount of Rs. 22172107/-under the loan account number 596398 and another notice dated 19.10.2015 to Gupta Polypack Private Ltd. Demanding a total outstanding loan amount of Rs 22181761/-under the loan account number 596446, both of which were addressed in the name of the opposite party, who allegedly has no connection whatsoever to the aforementioned companies. 6. That allegedly it was a bolt from the blue for the opposite party when he received the notices dated 15.09.2015 and 19.10.2015 from the petitioner no. 1, wherein the petitioner no. 1 has demanded a total sum of Rs. 4,43,53,868/-from the opposite party in respect of loan account bearing no. 6. That allegedly it was a bolt from the blue for the opposite party when he received the notices dated 15.09.2015 and 19.10.2015 from the petitioner no. 1, wherein the petitioner no. 1 has demanded a total sum of Rs. 4,43,53,868/-from the opposite party in respect of loan account bearing no. 596398 & 596446 as mentioned in the notices dated 15.09.2015 and 19.10.2015 respectively, wherein the opposite party has been shown as a Co-applicant/Guarantor in respect of the said loan account along with the borrowers i.e., Ravilal Hiralal Exports Pvt. Ltd. and Gupta Polysacks Pvt. Ltd. Both having their office at 4/1, Middleton Street, Sikkim Commercial House, 5th Floor, Kolkata-700 071. 7. That thereafter the opposite party immediately went to the office of the accused persons at 258/4, APC Road, Kolkata 700 006 and at Clive Row, 2nd and 3rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 001 and enquired about the matter and also requested to be shown the documents relating to the loan account. The opposite party was thereupon shown the documents by the accused persons, when to his shock he found that the signatures upon the documents were not his and he immediately communicated the said fact to the accused persons. 8. That the opposite party thereafter on so many occasions requested them to withdraw their said notices dated 15.09.2015 and 19.10.2015. But all efforts on the part of the opposite party went in vain and on the other hand the opposite party was threatened by the accused, coercing the complainant to pay the said amount of Rs. 4,43,53,868/-falling which they will implicate the opposite party in various other false cases. 9. That the opposite party submits that the purported signatures appearing upon the documents and/ or papers of the said loan accounts showing the opposite party as the co-applicant/guarantor are not the signatures of the opposite party, and the accused in collusion and in conspiracy with each other has forged the opposite party’s signature and are using the same as genuine to defraud opposite party thus causing a wrongful loss to the opposite party. 10. After receiving the petition of complaint the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate 15th Court Calcutta for transfer the same to the file of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate 15th Court Calcutta. 10. After receiving the petition of complaint the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate 15th Court Calcutta for transfer the same to the file of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate 15th Court Calcutta. Upon receiving the said case records Learned Metropolitan Magistrate 15th Court Calcutta was pleased to examine the opposite party u/s 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereon pleased to direct the O.C of the Shakespeare Sarani Police station to conduct an enquiry in terms of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to submit a report. 11. Initially on 24.03.2017 the police has submitted a report the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate 15th Court Calcutta, after observing the same direction in the said inquiry report directed the O.C. of Shakespeare Sarani Police station to clarify the aforesaid report and directed to submit a fresh report. On 10.04.2017 the police authority also submitted the report including the clarification of the earlier report. Upon considering the materials on record by the police authority Learned Metropolitan Magistrate 15th Court Calcutta pleased to find the prima facie case made against the present petitioners and three other persons u/s 420/465/468/471/120B of IPC and passing impugned order for issuance of process against the present petitioner and other Co-accused persons. 12. Further the Learned Magistrate has exonerated to other alleged accused persons namely Venkatraman Srinivasan and Smita Affinwala on the ground that they had joined the accused company on 15.03.2015 i.e March after the incidents and pleased to discharge them from the instant case. 13. The present petitioners are before this revisional court on the ground that they are innocent of the impugned proceeding initiated at the instant of the opposite party is passed prevarications, untruth, vexesus, harasive and mala fide in nature. 14. Hence this revision. 15. Apart from the material grounds on merit, the petitioners herein raised three points of law to assail the petition of complaint filed by the opposite party. 16. Firstly, it was contended by Mr. Ganguly, Learned Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the issuance of process against the present petitioners on the basis of the alleged report filed by the police authority is palpably illegal and bad in law. He submitted that the Learned Magistrate has directed the officer in charge of Shakespeare Sarani Police station to conduct an enquiry u/s 202 and to submit a report. He submitted that the Learned Magistrate has directed the officer in charge of Shakespeare Sarani Police station to conduct an enquiry u/s 202 and to submit a report. The report was submittd according to the direction of the Magistrate by the police authority but it appears from the report that the enquiry was actually conducted by additional O.C of the said Police Station. The O.C of the Shakespeare Sarani Police station only forwarded the said report prepared by the Additional O.C. He submitted that the enquiry conducted by the Additional O.C. in pursuance to the order of the Magistrate and so called report thereof being without jurisdiction, not be used to issue process. In support of his contention he cited a decision reported in (1999) 2 CHN 325 [Krishnachandra Pal Vs. Md. Natu Sekh]. 17. The O.P. complainant submitted before this court that the Additional O.C submitted report as per direction of the Magistrate. The report categorically depicts hand writing expert’s opinion. The said report evidently reveals forgery of the complainant’s signature on the loan documents. Thus the contention to the petitioners that the report is unauthorised since submitted by the Additional O.C. is wholly tenuous. The reports dated 15.08.2016, 17.08.2016, 31.08.2016, 24.032017 and report dated 04.08.2017 have been duly forwarded by the O.C of the Shakespeare Sarani Police station with his stamp seal and signature. The order of Magistrate is merely direction on the O.C of police station to investigate into a cognizable case with the direction of the Magistrate the O.C starts exercising his power u/s 158 (1) of the code, u/s 157 Cr.P.C. the O.C is empowered to delegate his own power of investigation to one of his subordinate officers. Thus he argued that the report submitted by the Additional OC is not bad in the eye of law. In support of his contention he cited a decision of P.L Jalan Vs. Gourmahan Chandra 1969 CRLJ 808 . 18. Heard the Learned Advocate on the point of law. Perused the order of Magistrate Dated 01.07.2016; it appears that the date was fixed for SA u/s 200 Cr.P.C. The complainant appeared and he was examined on SA on considering the evidences on record the Learned Magistrate directed the OC of Shakespeare Sarani Police station ‘specifically’ to conduct of inquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. and to furnish a report before the Magistrate. 19. 19. It appears that the OC of the Shakespeare Sarani Police station was “specifically” directed to conduct the inquiry in Krishnachandra Pal Vs. Md. Natu Sekh (supra). This High Court in similar facts and circumstances has observed:--- 10. Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. provides that the Magistrate may direct an investigation by any person as he thinks fit for the purpose of ascertaining whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Therefore, it is entirely for the Magistrate to decide the fitness of a person to hold an enquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C. But the person who has been directed by the Learned Magistrate to hold such enquiry cannot delegate his function to some other person and if he does so, the person so delegated acquires no jurisdiction to hold such enquiry. Therefore, in the instant case it must be held that the entrustment of the enquiry by the Officer-in-charge of the P.S. was not within his competence, nor the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police acquired any authority to hold the enquiry. In my considered opinion the learned Magistrate should not have looked into the result of such enquiry/investigation and the order issuing process on the basis of such inquiry report can not be sustained. 20. This High Court in P.L. Jalan Vs. Gour Mahan Chandra has discussed the law laid down u/s 157 and 158 (1) Cr.P.C. The power of police to conduct investigation under the order of Magistrate u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. is completely distinct in respect of direction of Magistrate under Section 202 Cr.P.C. While Section 156 Sub-Clause 3 empowers the Magistrate to cause investigation of a cognizable offence; on the other hand Section 202 empowers Magistrate to direct Police Officers/or any other person to cause enquiry to ascertain as to whether there are sufficient ground for proceeding or not. The stages of investigation/inquiry u/s 156(3) and u/s 202 Cr.P.C. are completely different. 22. At this juncture, the principle laid down in Krishnachandra Pal is aptly applicable. It is true under the provisions of Section 157 of Cr.P.C the Officer-in-charge of a Police Station duly ordered by the Magistrate to conduct an investigation may delegate his function to any of his subordinate officers. But Section 202 allows the Magistrate to delegate the power of upon any particular person/police officers to conduct enquiry before issuance of process against accused persons. But Section 202 allows the Magistrate to delegate the power of upon any particular person/police officers to conduct enquiry before issuance of process against accused persons. It appears in the instant case that the Additional O.C of Shakespeare Sarani Police station has conducted the enquiry report and the same report was officially forwarded by the O.C. to the Magistrate. The report states the Additional O.C of Shakespeare Sarani Police station has conduct the enquiry. Considering the law laid down in Krishna Chandra Pal it appears to me that the report of enquiry conducted by the Additional Officer-in-charge of Shakespeare Sarani Police station is actually not the report in accordance with the direction issued by the Magistrate vide Order dated 01.07.2016. Consequently the impugned order of issuance of process against the present petitioner dated 11.04.2017 on the basis of the said inquiry report is not in accordance with law. The Learned Magistrate should not have acted upon the alleged enquiry report. 23. The Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party submitted before this Court that the huge materials has collected on the basis of that report and such report cannot be brushed aside at this stage on the ground of mere technicalities. 24. The report gave rise to the issuance of process is no doubt bad in law as it was based upon the enquiry report of a person who was not specifically directed by the Learned Magistrate to conduct enquiry. The power delegated upon the O.C Shakespeare Sarani Police station can not be sub-delegated to the Additional OC of the said Police Station. So considering the law lay down in that aspect in my view the order of issuance of process in this case against the present petitioner is liable to be set aside. 25. As the order of issuance of process against the present petitioners became illegal, the other grounds for quashing the complaint is not appears to be justifiable to discuss at this juncture. Considering the discussion made above the instant CRR is disposed of. 26. The impugned order dated 11.04.2017 for issuance of process is hereby set aside. 27. The Learned Magistrate is directed to pass a necessary order so that the enquiry can be made by the O.C of the Shakespeare Sarani Police station as directed by him and a report be submitted by the said O.C as early as possible. 26. The impugned order dated 11.04.2017 for issuance of process is hereby set aside. 27. The Learned Magistrate is directed to pass a necessary order so that the enquiry can be made by the O.C of the Shakespeare Sarani Police station as directed by him and a report be submitted by the said O.C as early as possible. On receiving such report, the Magistrate shall proceed with this case in accordance with law. 28. Connected CRAN applications are disposed of. 29. Any order of stay passed by this court during the pendency of the instant criminal revision is also vacated. 30. Parties to act upon the server copy and urgent certified copy of the judgment be received from the concerned Dept. on usual terms and conditions.