Form No.J(1) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Present:The Hon'ble Justice Madhumati Mitra C.R.R. 614 of 2019 With CRAN 1613 of 2019 Pramod Kumar Jhunjhunwala Anr.The petitioners have approached before this Court for quashing of the criminal proceedings being C.S.Case No.6173/2018 under Sections 120B/420/406/364/364A/506 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Kolkata.Before dealing with the rival submissions of the parties, it would be appropriate to set out the facts briefly.The petitioners are husband and wife and they are the accused of the criminal proceeding pending before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Kolkata.Petitioners have stated in their application that they were the owner of a piece of land with an incomplete super structure of (G+2).The petitioners formed a company and became its directors and holders of the entire shares of the said company viz M/s. Precious Plastic Pvt. Ltd. The present opposite party proposed the petitioners to take over the said company and develop the project.There was an agreement between the present petitioners and the opposite party who was the director of three companies to take over the company of the petitioners.It was settled that the opposite party was to pay a sum of Rs. 4 crores at the beginning.After completion of the entire construction, a sum of Rs.5 crores would be paid to the petitioners along with 1st floor of the building with car parking space.Opposite party neither paid Rs.5 crores after completion of the building nor handed over the 1st floor of the building as agreed upon.However, the parties came to an understanding.During the course of that understanding the signatures of the petitioners were obtained on several documents.Petitioners came to know that those signatures were converted into some valuable documents.Present opposite party filed protest petition opposing the prayer of investigating officer to discharge the petitioner.The said protest petitioner was rejected by the Learned Magistrate and accused was discharged.Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate after taking cognizance transferred the same to the file of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate 11th Court for enquiry and disposal in accordance with law.On 05.04.2018, Learned Magistrate examined the complainant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directed the officer in charge of Hare Street Police Station to take necessary steps for causing an inquiry over the allegations made in the complaint as per the provision contained in Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials placed on record, it appears to me that the short question that arises for consideration in this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is whether the Learned Magistrate was justified in issuing process against the petitioners.The order of issuance of the process has been strongly challenged by the petitioners mainly on three grounds:The 1st ground is that previously the opposite party lodged an FIR in respect of the self-same allegations and police submitted final report after completion of investigation.Opposite party filed protest petition challenging the said final report and that protest petition was rejected.The order of rejection of protest petition has not been challenged.Thereafter, the opposite party instead of challenging the said order filed the present complaint on same facts.It is the specific claim of the petitioners that the present complaint being second complaint is totally barred in the eye of law.Now, I have to deal with the points raised by the petitioners one by one.From the copy of the order dated 05.01.2018 passed in G.R.Case No.2298 of 2015, it transpires that after completion of investigation final report was submitted in connection with Hare Street Police Station Case No. 594 of 2015 and the present opposite party filed protest petition.That order of rejection of protest application had not been challenged by the opposite party.Opposite party filed a second complainant on the same facts."Cognizance taken.Register the case.

Cited provisions: Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code