PAMELA SYAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by Smt. Pamela Syal, accused No. 5 praying for quashing of the charge sheet being No. 172 dated 10th August,2005 under Sections 468/471/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code arising in connection with FIR dated 22nd June, 2001 being No. 236 being BGR No. 2052 of 2001 corresponding to GD entry No. 1768 dated 22nd June, 2001 of Behala Police Station , district-South 24- Parganas . The factual background is that one Gorachand Bhowmick lodged a complaint at Behala Police Station against the Managing Director and others of M/s Golden Forest (India) Limited. He has alleged that one Bharati Chakraborty, an agent of the M/s Golden Forest (India ) Limited allured him to invest Rs. 5,000.00 on 25 thOctober, 1996 in the said company for their scheme for payment of Rs. 10,000.00 after maturity on 25th April,2000. A certificate being No. 96/274310 and a post dated cheque on maturity dated 25th April,2000 drawn on Canara Bank, Parchula Branch , Haryana for Rs. 10,000.00 was handed over to him. On maturity the complainant deposited the said cheque but the same was dishonoured for insufficient fund. He thereafter deposited the dishonoured cheque to the local regional office of the said company on 12th July,2000 with a request to issue a fresh cheque but in vain. He has been cheated by the company and others.

(2.) ON the basis of the complaint Behala Police Station started a case being FIR No. 236 dated 22nd June,2001 being BGR No. 2052 of 2001 under Section 420/12B of the Indian Penal Code. The case was investigated and on completion of the investigation charge sheet being NO. 172 dated 10th August,2005 under Section 468/471/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code has been submitted against nine accused persons including the petitioner / accused No. 5 Smt. Pamela Syal. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the charge sheet this is the application.

(3.) THE petitioner was not a managing director of the company. She has neither received the money in cash from the de facto complainant nor has issued the certificate. Since no offence of cheating and/or forgery is made out against the petitioner the continuation of the proceeding against the petitioner herein would be an abuse of the process of the Court and accordingly it should be quashed.