11 July 2025 Forgery >> Criminal Law  

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a revisional application seeking to quash criminal proceedings against Ranjay Ghatak, a former Project Supervisor, and his wife, Samika Ghatak, in a case involving allegations of cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust, and criminal conspiracy. The court found sufficient prima facie evidence to warrant a full trial.

The case, Special Case No. 01 of 2019, originated from a complaint by Sanjay Ghatak, Director of Sisan Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. The complainant alleged that Ranjay Ghatak, entrusted with collecting cheques from customers, absented himself from work in January 2018. Later, in July/August 2018, the company discovered that "agreement for sale" documents bore forged signatures of the complainant. Investigations revealed that customer payments, meant for the company, were instead credited to Ranjay Ghatak's personal account or a joint account held by both petitioners.

The petitioners, through their counsel, argued for quashing the proceedings on several grounds:

• Inordinate Delay: They claimed an unexplained delay of over a month between the alleged discovery of the fraud and the formal complaint, suggesting it vitiated the case.
• Inapplicability of Section 409 IPC: It was contended that Ranjay Ghatak, as a salaried employee, did not fit the strict definition of "public servant, banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent" under Section 409 (Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant, or agent).
• Absurd Allegations: They asserted that the allegations were "absurd and improbable," failing to disclose any prima facie offence, and driven by "mala fide intention" and "ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance."

However, the prosecution, represented by the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, strongly opposed the application, citing robust evidence. They argued that Ranjay Ghatak, as a Project Supervisor entrusted with company funds, unequivocally acted as an "agent" in a fiduciary capacity, thus falling within the ambit of Section 409 IPC.

The prosecution further highlighted:

• Corroborative statements from multiple witnesses.
• Seizure of incriminating documents, including forged agreements and money receipts.
• Bank statements showing funds diverted to the petitioners' personal/joint accounts.
• A report from the Questioned Document Examination Bureau (QDEB) dated July 29, 2019, confirming Ranjay Ghatak's specimen signatures matched those on forged money receipts.
• Evidence of Samika Ghatak's involvement through the joint account, indicating a criminal conspiracy.

The High Court meticulously considered the arguments and established legal principles governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The court emphasized that such extraordinary power should be used sparingly, primarily to prevent a clear abuse of the legal process, and not to prematurely halt a legitimate prosecution.

On the points raised by the petitioners, the court observed:

• Delay: While delay can be a factor, it is not an automatic ground for quashing unless it points to deliberate fabrication. The complainant's consistent efforts to initiate legal action (first with police, then through a magisterial complaint) suggested a continuous pursuit of justice.
• Applicability of Section 409 IPC: The court noted that jurisprudence broadly interprets "agent" in Section 409 to include individuals in positions of trust with fiduciary responsibility, which a project supervisor collecting company funds would entail.
• Prima Facie Case: The court found the evidence, including witness statements, bank transactions, and the handwriting expert's report, substantial enough to establish a prima facie case for cheating, forgery, and conspiracy. It referenced the Supreme Court's State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal judgment, stating that the current case did not fall into categories warranting premature termination.
• Mala Fide Intent: The court stated that allegations of "mala fide intention" must be substantiated with concrete evidence, and if prima facie cognizable offences are revealed, the justice system cannot be halted merely on such grounds.

In conclusion, the High Court determined that the allegations, supported by investigation evidence, disclosed cognizable offences. It held that the petitioners' arguments constituted defenses requiring a full-fledged trial, and therefore, the court's inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could not be invoked to cut short proceedings involving disputed questions of fact and law.

The revisional application was accordingly dismissed, and the trial court was directed to proceed with Special Case No. 01 of 2019 expeditiously and in accordance with the law.

  Section 482., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973