Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Anup Kumar Joardar & Anr vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 17 April, 2013
Author: Toufique Uddin
Bench: Toufique Uddin
1
04/2013
KB
21
C. R.R. 2277 of 2006
Sri Anup Kumar Joardar & Anr.
Versus
State of West Bengal & Anr.
Mr. Dipanjan Chatterjee.. For petitioner
Ms. Rituparna Dey ... For State
This is a case where the parent petitioner prayed for quashing of the proceeding of the
G.R. Case No. 296/04 corresponding to Shakespeare P.S. Case No. 37 dated 4.2.2004 pending
before the Ld. 12th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Calcutta under Section 420/468/471/34
I.P.C.
In the background of this prayer the fact in a nutshell is as follows:
One Uma Shankar Sharma representing M/s. Amitava Estate and Pvt.
Ltd. of 6/7A, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road, Calcutta - 700 070 filed
an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for
offence committed under Sections 420/467/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal
Code against the petitioners before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Calcutta alleging that with common intention they used forged signature of Sri
Amitabha Jalan and produced the same at the bank as genuine and withdrew
Rs.6,53,738/- only and cheated. It was sent to Officer-in-Charge, Shakespeare
Sarani treating the same as First Information Report and on the basis of that
order the Officer-in-Charge concerned on 4.2.2004 started Shakespeare Sarani
2
P.S. Case No. 37/2004 under Sections 420/467/468/471/34 of the Indian
Penal Code against the petitioners.
The opposite party no.2 is a Private Limited Company carrying on different type of
business under different names and styles. The petitioner no. l was working exclusively for the
purpose of looking after the accounting job in respect of opposite party no. 2 company at a
monthly salary of Rs.5900/- as during service tenure, the petitioner no. 1 discharged his
sincere services to the respondent company.
One Mr. Amitabha Jalan, a Director of the respondent company used to exploit the petitioner no. l taking full advantage of his modesty and poor financial condition. The petitioner no. l was given in his name a General Power of Attorney by one M/s. Maghmaboth Yashiboth Jacob Benzamin Elious wherein said Mr. Amitabha Jalan or his another company run under the name "Mithua Developments Pvt. Ltd." was directly involved. The petitioner was put to do by virtue thereof under advice and direction of Amitabha Jalan of the respondent company a number of works with Calcutta Municipal Corporation and other Government departments for which the petitioner was exploited and no remuneration was given to him by Amitabha Jalan or by the respondent company. The petitioner in the year 1998 quite suddenly was taken to United Bank of India, Park Street Branch, Calcutta. Under the introduction of a person, working in Magma Securities Ltd. at 24, Park Steet, Calcutta - 700 016 of which said Amitabha Jalan who is one of the Directors, a Savings Bank Account No. 59072 was opened. Thereafter the said Amitabha Jalan got full cheque books signed blank by the petitioner and subsequently it could be observed till mid of June, 2002 that a huge amount of money to the tune of Rs. 3 5 Crores approximately was collected from various parties on account of Magma Securities Ltd. and was passed through United Bank of India, Park Street Branch, Calcutta. . In connection therewith he sometimes issued account payee cheque in the name of the petitioner no. l's wife and petitioner no. 2. The petitioner no. l was like an scapegoat under the said Amitabha Jalan. He also got a number of such cheques encashed through one of his office bearers Sri Jayram Palia. He got into the groove of asking and directing the petitioner no. l to make entries in different bank pass books just matching the withdrawal from the bank.
Amitabha Jalan used to maintain his command with the petitioner no. l. Accordingly, as a most obedient staff petitioner no. l took his wife along with him in the office of the respondent company on 15th June, 2002 at about 10.30 A.M. when Mr. Amitabha Jalan discussed with the petitoner no. l and his wife that he was in trouble as his frequent siphone of sizeable amounts from different bank accounts had been smelt by his father Mr. S. Jalan. He proposed that by any means he had to be bailed out. He sought cooperation and assistance from the petitioner no. l and his wife so that Mr. Jalan could keep his image with honesty.
The petitioner no.l became very serious and asked Mr. Amitabha Jalan to regularise the withdrawal and deposit account so long carried out by Mr. Amitabha Jalan in the name of the petitioner no. l and his wife and the petitioner no. 2 for different amounts from different bank accounts otherwise the petitioner no. 1 expressed that he will be in trouble for both income tax and will be seriously misunderstood by the said Mr. S. Jalan the father of Mr. Amitabha Jalan.
4
Mr. Amitabha Jalan get infuriated and said that he will cast all liabilities of crores of rupees upon the petitioner and his wife and the petitioner no. 2. Mr. S. Jalan also threatened the petitioner that in the event the petitioner no. l's failure to carry out his order he will not hesitate holding the petitioner no. l liable for counter-feiting and forging his signature on the cheque leaf with further charge and mis-appropriation of money. The petitioner and his wife became frightened.
Amitabha Jalan in fact misappropriated a huge amount from different accounts making the petitioner no.l as escape goat. Thereafter the petitioner no. l used to come to the office as normal but on 2lst June, 2002 Mr. Amitabha Jalan called him his personal chamber at 6/7A. Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road, Calcutta - 700 017 and asked him to come to his office on 22nd June, 2002. At about 10.30 A.M. along with his wife, the petitioner and his wife accordingly reached the office on 22nd June, 2002. One Anirban Banerjee attached with Mr. Amitabha Jalan impressed upon the petitioner no. l and his wife to sign certain documents.
i) An agreement for transfer, typed in computer on Rs.10/-
non-judicial stamp, purchased on 15th May, 2002.
ii) One Deed of Mortgage, computer typed on Rs.10/- non-
judicial stamp, purchased on 15th May, 2002.
iii) One MOU
iv) One specific Power of Attorney, computer typed on Rs.50/-
non-judicial stamp as purchased on 15th May, 2002.
5
v) One letter for handing over possession of the plaintiff's two flats.
vi) Petitioner' no. l's declaration.
All the above documents were got signed by the petitioner no. l undated without any witness. The petitioner no. l was neither allowed to have xerox copies of such documents nor he was allowed to see. On 22nd June, 2002 after getting the above documents signed under coercion and fear, the respondent started consoling the petitioner no. l and his wife that such documents are only to be shown to Mr. S. Jalan, the father of Mr. Amitabha Jalan and thereafter those documents will be torn out.
Amitabha Jalan aimed at grabbing the said flats of petitioner no. l. Even a letter of handing over possession of those flats had been got signed for no fault. The petitioner no. l in the first week of June, 2002 was compelled to file a Civil Suit being as Title Suit No. 34 of 2002 against the said Mr. Amitabha Jalan and Amitabha Estates and Finance Pvt. Ltd. in the Court of the Learned 10th Civil Judge, (Senior Division) at Alipore. Sri Amitabha Jalan started to threaten the petitioner no. l with false criminal cases.
During the pendency of the said Civil Suit the opposite party no. 2 without appearing therein falsely initiated Shakespeare Sarani P.S. Case No. 37 dated 4.2.2004 against the petitioners under Sections 420/467/468/471/34 I.P.C.
On 7.6.2004 Shakespeare Sarani P.S. submitted charge Sheet. The learned Judge took cognizance. Being dis-satisfied with the order of taking 6 cognizance, the petitioner has come up with the prayer for quashing of the case on the following grounds.
i) The impugned proceedings is nothing but a sheer abuse of process of Court. The allegations made in the First Information Report are false, motivated, concocted and engineered with oblique motive to harass the petitioner no.l.
The dispute cropped up in June, 2002 when petitioner no. l and his wife were compelled to sign various documents in favour of the defacto complainant involving two flats of petitioner No. l. Being unsuccessful to grab the flats of the petitioners the defecto complainant initiated the criminal proceedings.
Learned lawyer of the petitioner submitted that under F.I.R. No. 37 dated 4.2.2004, G.R. Case No. 296 of 2004 was born under Sections 420/467/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code, over illegally withdrawal of amount from bank to the extent of Rs. 6,53,738/- after forging the signature of Amitabha Jalan by the accused no.l.
Learned lawyer of the petitioner further placed before me certified copy of another F.I.R. showing date of offence on 2.8.2001 to 12.6.2002. It was contended therein that another case was borne under F.I.R. 152 dated 20.7.2002 under Section 381/403/406/408/420/467/468 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner by the complainant Shiv Kumar Verma stating inter alia, that in the Order 1994 the petitioner no. l group of employees as cashier cum accountant of accused no. 2 brother- in -law of the accused no. l frequented the office of the complainant. 7 But the accused no. l opened his personal Savings Bank Account No. 2491 for cheating, falsification of accounts, and stealing, and forging signature of Amitabha Jalan.
Learned lawyer for the State on the other hand contended that there is no scope for quashing the proceedings right now in view of the fact that the nature of complaints in both G.R. Case No. 296 of 2004 and B.G.R. Case No. 2496/2004 are different.
I have carefully examined the materials on record and submission made by the lawyer. First of all it requires mention that the grounds taken for quashing the proceedings relates to Shakespeare P.S. Case No. 37 of 2004 dated 4.2.2004 and not Bishnupur P.S. Case(B.G.R. 2496 of 2002). The attempt of present petitioner to get his case quashed is confusing in view of the inconsistent stand taken by him. Because in the instant case there is no mention of B.G.R. Case No. 2496 of 2002. Moreover, two cases appear to be of different nature.
Even then I find no ground for clubbing of two cases as submitted by learned lawyer of the petitioner because I am of the opinion that at this stage without taking any evidence it cannot be said if the nature of allegation of both the cases are same or not. This is not the right stage for quashing of the proceedings.
Moreover, if at all it transpires subsequently that the ingredients of both the cases and nature of allegations are identical and those arise out of same transaction, the Court will take appropriate action. Learned lawyer of the 8 petitioner in support of his contention cited a decision reported in (2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases 181 wherein the facts and circumstances of that case are distinguishable and do no match with present case. Therefore, in view of discussion above the present revision has no merit.
Accordingly, the same stands dismissed.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties as early as possible.
(Toufique Uddin, J.)