HDFC BANK LTD Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been initiated by the Petitioner praying for quashing of the proceedings bearing B.G.R. case No. 353 of 2009 pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, and the corresponding proceeding of Jadavpore Police Station case No. 40 dated 21.01.2009 under Sections 341/323/379 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) It is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner being incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Office at Calcutta, is being represented by Sri Sachin Kumar Gupta, Deputy Manager (Legal). Jadavpore Police Station case No. 40 dated 21.01.2009 has been registered for investigation on the basis of a letter of complaint lodged by the opposite party No. 2 with the Inspector-in-charge of Jadavpore Police Station alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 341/323/379 of the Indian Penal Code by unknown persons. It has been alleged therein that the vehicle of the opposite party No. 2 /complainant bearing No. WB - 02U/2790 was forcibly snatched away by five local goons while it was being driven by the driver of the opposite party No. 2 from West Wind, Ramgarh to Palm Avenue, Ballygunj at around 8.30 p.m., and the driver of the opposite party No. 2/complainant namely Phulesh Singh was physically assaulted and thrown out of the said car after the keys of the said vehicle were snatched away at Ramgarh, and it is the suspicion of the complainant that HDFC Officials were responsible for the aforesaid act. But the present Petitioner is completely innocent and is in no way connected with the commission of the alleged offences and he has falsely been implicated in the said case. The facts disclosed in the complaint do not make out any case of contravention of the provisions of the Sections 341/323/379 of the Indian Penal Code and as such no offence under the said section can be said to have been made out. The cognizance of the proceeding under the aforesaid provisions of law is clearly misconceived and against the express provision of the statute, and so it would be just and proper to quash the impugned proceedings, and it would be gross abuse of the process of the Court and the Petitioner will have to suffer irreparable loss and injury if the said proceeding is allowed to continue and the impugned proceeding is otherwise bad in law and for the interest of justice that is liable to be quashed.

(3.) The opposite party No. 1, State of West Bengal has appeared in this matter, but has filed no affidavit-in-opposition. Opposite party No. 2, the complainant has neither appeared nor has filed any affidavit-in-opposition.