SUDHIR SATNALIWALA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of West Port Police Station Case No. 141 of 2013 dtd. 16/7/2013 under Ss. 120B/406/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) presently pending before the Court of Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24 Parganas through this revision application.

(2.) A brief gist of the allegations made by the opposite party no. 2 herein through the written complaint which gave rise to the West Port Police Station Case No. 141 of 2013 is to the effect that opposite party no. 2 herein is a Director of a Company under the name and style of Aggarwal Steel Complex Limited duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. In the year 1999 the said company was referred to the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short BIFR) and was subsequently declared as a Sick Industrial Unit under the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies Act vide an order dtd. 29/7/1999. However, in the year 2004 the present petitioner approached the opposite party no. 2 herein with a proposal that if he is inducted as a director then he would infuse fresh funds for proper rehabilitation of the said company and revive it back from the status of Sick Industrial Unit. In good faith the opposite party no. 2 herein agreed to such request of the petitioner. However, soon after the petitioner upon continuous misrepresentation started to take entire control of the said company and disposed of all assets of the said company in violation of the order of the BIFR and without the knowledge of the opposite party no. 2 herein or the Board of Directors of the said company. Thereafter, when the opposite party no. 2 herein started to visit the fixed assets of the said company viz the Furnace Factory site, the office of the company at Shakespeare Sarani, the second manufacturing facility/a Rolling Mill at Paharpur, he to his utter despair came to know that all those assets were either sold of or transferred to some 3rd party without any prior intimation either to the opposite party no. 2 or the Board of Directions of the said company. Thereby, the opposite party no. 2 alleged that the petitioner entered into a criminal conspiracy and in pursuance to that conspiracy, misappropriated the assets of the said company and thus committed cheating and forgery totaling to a substantial amount and thereby committed all the offences alleged. Arguments Advanced:-

(3.) Ld. Counsel, Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has mainly canvassed his argument on the following points:-