SANJAY CHORARIA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of the proceedings in CGR Case No.1519 of 2001 arising out Bhowanipore/DD Police Station Case No.176 dated 05.05.2001under Sections 120B/420/409/467/468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Learned Sub- divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24 Parganas.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present Revisional Application are as under:-

(3.) It was alleged in the said FIR that on June 21, 1999, July 24, 1999, February 19, 2000, through one Prosenjit Paul of Paul Finance, the de- facto complainant had invested a sum of Rs.20,000/- + Rs.20,000/- with one M/s Heritage Herbs Ltd. and Rs.12000/-(Rupees Twelve Thousand) with one M/s Harmony Herbs Ltd. respectively for one year. The chief of the said two companies was one Raj Kumar Chamaria and he had assured that the money of the complainant would remain secure and be refunded on maturity with 22% interest per annum which was higher rate of interest compared to bank rate. It was also alleged that the accused in order to create confidence, prepared and used some forged and fabricated documents as regards Reserve Bank of India and Registrar of companies. Subsequently the cheques issued by the accused in respect of the dues of the de-facto complainant were dishonoured. When the de-facto complainant approached the offices of the two companies for refund of his money, he was driven out by said Raj Kumar Chamaria and his office staff. It was the specific allegation in the FIR that earlier the daughter of Raj Kumar Chamaria namely Pallabi and son-in-law had requested the de- facto complainant to reinvest his money. The de-facto complainant was told that the financial affairs of the companies were being looked into by the daughter and son-in-law of Raj Kumar Chamaria. When the daughter and son-in-law had been contacted, they had assured the de-facto complainant that they would refund his money. Later the de-facto complainant was driven out by the director and officers of the company when he went to inquire about his money.