KURSHID AHMED Vs. RAVI FOGLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) To wriggle out of the situation arising out of the issuance of summons upon them directing them to answer the accusations of having committed an offence punishable under Sections 385, 420, 511 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 13th Court, Kolkata in connection with Case No. C/263/04 the petitioners, who feel that the Petition of Complaint taken in their entirety do not make out a case for the alleged offence, have beseeched this Court to quash the said proceeding.

(2.) The opposite party No. 2 took out a Petition of Complaint before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 389, 465, 468, 469, 471, 420, 511 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It was averred in the said Petition of Complaint that on or about 20.11.2003 a printed bill in the name of the complainant was forwarded and immediately it was verbally brought to the notice of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 that he is no way responsible for the purported bill, as her never applied for any connection. Recitals in the said Petition of Complaint show that the Petitioner No. 1 is a Chief Executive of Reliance Infocom Ltd. and the petitioner No. 2 is also another Officer Of the said company concerned with looking after day-to-day affairs of the Kolkata Office and the other accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 (Mukesh D. Ambani, Anil D. Ambani and Anand Jain respectively), who are not before this Court controls and manages the company. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 "are directly related and/ or connected with the Accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 and do all the activities as per the direction and/or instructions of the Accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5.". It appears that the complainant/petitioner who is a businessman in motor parts never applied for any mobile phone connection from the said company but, he received a letter from the said company confirming the connection and he replied that he never applied for the said connection. However, in spite of the same he got a printed bill against the purported service provided to him. When contacted the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 was informed 'about such wrongly dealings" then they assured the complainant that they are looking into the matter. Thereafter it further transpired that there were 11 mobile connections given in his favour and the bills were raised at fictitious manner. He informed the police about the said affairs. The accused company demanded Rs. 1,27,784-44 from the complainant followed by a demand notice and visits by some persons threatening him to pay the said money by way of extortion.

(3.) Acting on the basis of the same the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta by its Order dated 19.3.2004 took cognizance and subsequently the learned Transferee Magistrate after examining the Opposite Party No. 1 and perusing the documents available and after taking his Initial Ejahar found 'that there is sufficient ground for proceeding under Section 385/420/511, 120B, I.P.C. against all the accused persons.'. Accordingly he issued Summons against all the accused persons under Sections 385, 420, 511 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and fixed 12.7.2004 for Service Return and appearance.