Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Hopgage Ltd. & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 5 July, 2017
Author: Joymalya Bagchi
Bench: Joymalya Bagchi
1
667. 05.07.2017 W.P. 17272 (W) of 2017
Aloke
Ct. no. 28
Hopgage Ltd. & Anr.
versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Sandipan Ganguly
Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya
Ms. Meenal Sinha
Ms. L. Sinha
... for the petitioners
Mr. Sakya Sen
Mr. Amrita Lal Chatterjee
... for the State
Mr. S.K. Kapur, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Y.J. Dastur, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ravi Kapur
Mr. Anirban Ray
Mr. Soumik Chakraborty
Mr. Rishav Dutt
Mr. Suman Brahma
... for the respondent nos. 7 & 8
The grievance of the petitioners is that the demat shares of RIL had been entrusted to the private respondents who are carrying on business as share brokers. However, the private respondents have failed and/or neglected to account for the said shares and or the value thereof. Hence, the petitioners were constrained to institute criminal proceeding against them which is not being conducted in a fair and impartial manner. 2 Mr. Kapur, learned senior counsel appearing for the private respondent no. 8 submits that his firm had conducted its business with utmost transparency and in a prudent manner. In fact, the petitioners have sought to institute the criminal proceeding as an instrument of harassment after having failed to obtain orders from the civil court where parties are already litigating over the selfsame issue.
Mr. Dastur, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no. 7 submits that the petitioner no.2 was an erstwhile director of the said concern.
Mr. Sen, learned counsel appearing for the State- respondents submits report wherefrom it appears that necessary documents relating to the transaction have been furnished by the petitioners on 22.03.2017 although the first information report was registered in 2016. Investigation is in progress and notices under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. have been served upon the accused persons.
In reply, Mr. Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the ineffectiveness and partisan character of the investigation is patent on the face of record as the investigating agency had resorted to Section 3 41A Cr.P.C. to summon the accused persons, although, the offences in the first information included Section 409 IPC which is punishable with life imprisonment. Accordingly, he prays that the investigation may be transferred to a superior agency.
In view of the aforesaid facts, I note although Section 41A Cr.P.C. can be resorted to only in cases involving offences upto seven years imprisonment, investigating agency has resorted to such measure in the instant case involving offences punishable upto life imprisonment.
Accordingly, I direct the investigating agency to desist from proceeding with the said notices under Section 41A Cr.P.C. against the accused persons but to resort to other processes of investigation to collect evidence in the matter.
In spite of the aforesaid remissness, keeping in mind the fact that the investigation is at its initial stage, I am of the opinion it may not be prudent to change the investigating agency at this stage. However, the investigation of the instant case conducted by respondent nos. 5 and 6 requires to be supervised by a superior police officer not less than the rank of Deputy 4 Commissioner of Police as assigned by the Commissioner of Police, Kolkata.
Further report as to progress of investigation be filed on the next date of hearing.
Affidavits be filed by the private respondents within one week from date; reply, if any thereto, be filed three weeks thereafter.
The matter shall appear under the heading 'Final Disposal' four weeks hence.
(Joymalya Bagchi, J.)