The Single Bench of Justice Bibhas Ranjan De of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Shree Gopal Tantia @ Gopal Prasad Tantia Vs The State of West Bengal & another quashed the proceedings against the Petitioner as there were no specific allegations and privity of contract.
Brief Facts:
A complaint was filed by the proprietor of M/s Vinayak Construction against the director of B2R Project Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as “B2R”), and the Director of G.P.T Infra Project Private Limited.
It was alleged that GPT obtained one contract and an agreement was executed between GPT and B2R as B2R approached GPT for the execution of the part of the contract. Thereafter, B2R engaged M/s. Vinayak Construction for the execution of the work by executing an agreement and M/s. Vinayak Construction appointed one Rashid Ali Khan and Arif Md. Khan for the execution of work and technical administration.
It was further alleged that after creating a fake letterhead with the proprietor of Vinayak Construction's signature, Rashid Ali Khan and Arif Md. Khan seized control of the account and paid the supplier, labour, and contractors. They even created fake bills to be paid and then misappropriated them.
Hence, a case was registered under Section 420/406/409/467/471/120B of the IPC.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was contended that there exists no contract between the principal contractor and the complainant. It was further contended that there is no privity of contract between GPT and M/s. Vinayak Construction and no transaction took place between G PT and M/s. Vinayak Construction.
Observations of the Court:
The High Court observed that it is undeniable that there was no transaction between GPT and the complainant/M/s. Vinayak Construction and that there was no privity of contract between these two companies. According to the written complaint made pursuant to Section 156(3), Rashid Ali Khan and Arif Md. Khan was specifically accused of forging the proprietor's signature on the letterhead of M/s Vinyak Construction.
Based on this consideration, the Court was of the view that without a transaction or entrustment between M/s. Vinayak Construction and Petitioner, the Director of G.P.T, cannot be held liable.
The decision of the Court:
With the above direction, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court quashed the proceedings against the Petitioner.
Case Title: Shree Gopal Tantia @ Gopal Prasad Tantia Vs The State of West Bengal & another
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bibhas Ranjan De
Case No.: C.R.R. 3864 of 2016
Advocate for the Petitioner: Advs. Mr. Ayan Bhattacherjee, Adv. Mr. Aditya Ratan Tiwary
Advocate for the State: Advs. Mr. Arijit Ganguly, Mrs. Debjani Sahu,
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
