SUDIP GHOSH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against an order of taking cognizance against the petitioner under section 387/347/379/471/406/469/468/506 of Indian Penal Code passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah, South 24 Parganas in Case No. C-347 of 1999.

(2.) A short history of the prosecution case is that on 26.4.99 at about 11 A.M. the complainant and three other witnesses went to the company's office for performing their duties as directed. All on a sudden at about 1.30 p.m. the petitioner with other 30 to 40 miscreants entered into the board room with deadly weapons and asked them to put their signature in blank papers. Therefore, under such constant threat the defacto complainant and other witnesses were, however, forced to put their signature in blank papers. The petitioner and his associated started abuses in filthy language against the defacto complainant and other witnesses. The petitioner and others further assaulted them with fist blows which caused mental and physical torture to them. Immediately after the occurrence they went to the local police station and narrated the incident to which the police assured them to take suitable action. But when they failed to take action against the petitioner, the defacto complainant was forced to lodge a complaint case before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. The case was, how ever, referred to the local police under section 156(3) for causing investigation. After the police submitted the report cognizance was taken against the petitioner. Therefore, being aggrieved by such taking of cognizance, he has preferred this revision.

(3.) Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that a false report was lodged against the petitioner, since he has been appointed as Director of the Company. As the defacto complainant and other associates have voluntarily submitted documents expressing their unwillingness to act as director and those documents were used against them, therefore, the defacto complainant just to undo the effect of those documents, filed a criminal case against the petitioner.