RAJESH MUNDHRA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present application the petitioners have prayed for quashing of a proceeding being G.R. Case No. 3990 of 2001 arising out of section R-1 (Beniapukur P.S.) Case No. 436 dated 8.12.2001 under sections 420/120B/341/201 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned ACJM, Sealdah, South 24 Parganas.

(2.) On the basis of a complaint lodged by one Sanatan Kundu the aforesaid case was registered with Beniapukur Police Station and on completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted by the police against the accused petitioners under sections 420/120B/341/201 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The allegation made in the FIR is that the complainant Sanatan Kundu was the sole proprietor of the Carnation Enterprises, which was subsequently converted into a Private Limited Company and was renamed as Carnation Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., wherein the accused No. 1 was inducted as a Director alongwith the complainant. The complainant Sanatan Kundu and his brother Madan Mohan Kundu are both founder directors of the said company. On 1.11.2001 the company issued one letter that a Board of Directors' meeting would be held on 6.11.2001 to discuss and consider the matter as stated in the agenda in the said letter. But in the said letter no such agenda regarding submission of resignation by the complainant and his brother was mentioned. The complainant and his brother attended the said meeting on 6.11.2001. But on 7.11.2001 the complainant and his brother received a letter dated 6.11.2001 from the Chairman E.M. Narielwala (accused petitioner No. 3 herein) confirming the acceptance of the resignation of the complainant and his brother from the Directorship of the company and appreciating their past services rendered to the company. The complainant and his brother were very much surprised to receive such letters as they neither submitted any resignation to the Board nor they ever intended to do so. Subsequently the complainant and his brother received another letter dated 7.11.2001 from the Company Secretary Rajesh Mundhra (accused petitioner No. 1 herein) stating that the verbal resignation of both of them were accepted by the Board and they were requested to send their resignation in writing. It was further alleged in the complaint that P.M. Narielwala, Chairman of the company (accused petitioner No. 3 herein) sent instructions to the company's five (5) Bankers confirming the resignation of the complainant and his brother and also for removing their names from the list of authorised signatories of the company and inserted the fresh names of Mr. Rajesh Mundhra, Company Secretary and Mr. Pradip Chakraborty, Company Accountant in their place. Having received such information the complainant and his brother in order to safeguard the interest of the company as also of the shareholders, served notices upon the said Bankers asking them not to act upon such forged and fabricated documents. But inspite of such precautionary measures taken by the complainant and his brother, the accused persons in collusion with some Bank Officers withdrew money from the State Bank of Hyderabad, Lansdowne Branch, Calcutta and misappropriated the said company on the basis of forged and fabricated documents for the purpose of cheating the company itself, the complainant and his brother as also the shareholders of the company. The first point raised by the learned advocate of the petitioners is that the allegations contained in the charge sheet, even if it is taken to be true, do not make out any offence at all. Secondly it is argued by the learned advocate of the petitioner that on the self-same allegation the complainant and his brother filed a civil suit for similar relief and since the said civil suit is still pending the criminal proceeding should not be allowed to continue.