Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 579 (JHR)

PARWATL AGARWAL v. STATE OF JHARKHAND

2004-05-21

H.S.PRASAD

body2004
Judgment : H. S. PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THIS application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 12-1-1999 passed in Complaint Case No. 627/98, whereby and whereunder cognizance under Sections 406/420ipc has been taken against the petitioners. ( 2 ) FACTS giving rise to the filing of this application are that opposite party No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant") has filed a complaint case before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi on 24-11-1998 stating therein that accused no. 1, M/s. Durga Finance Ltd. is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and accused No. 2 Smt. Parwati Agarwal and accused no. 3 Mangi Lai Agarwal are its directors. One M/s. Rungta Irrigation Ltd. is also a company limited by shares duly incorporated under the Companies Act. M/s. Rungta Irrigation Ltd. issued equity shares @ Rs. 10/ -. The accused No. 1 had purchased some shares of M/s. Rungta Irrigation Ltd. on or about 22-5-1995 and on or about 3-12-1996. The complainant purchased 2000 equity shares of Rs. 10/- bearing distinctive numbers from 4284301 to 4286300 of certificate no. 36644-663 for a consideration of Rs. 40,000/- only from the accused. The accused, through the authorized agent, delivered the said shares to the complainant at Ranchi along with a transfer certificate duly signed by accused No. 2 Smt. Parwati agarwal, one of the directors of M/s. Durga finance Ltd. and the money was delivered at Ranchi. It is further stated that at the time of purchase of shares the accused had assured the complainant that as soon as the said shares with transfer deed were lodged with M/s. Rungta Irrigation Ltd. the aforesaid purchased shares will be transferred in the name of the complainant. The complainant had purchased the said shares under the belief and good faith as assured by the accused that the shares would be transferred in his name and accordingly after purchase the complainant submitted those shares to M/s. Rungta Irrigation Ltd. for transfer in his name by letter dated 18-12-1996. It is alleged that the shares were out of N. R. I. / O. C. B. shares holdings, which were governed by the Reserve Bank of India terms and conditions as per their letter No. EC. CO. It is alleged that the shares were out of N. R. I. / O. C. B. shares holdings, which were governed by the Reserve Bank of India terms and conditions as per their letter No. EC. CO. FID (II) 5286/10-02- 04 (5691) 94-95 dated 29-9-1995 and the permission of the Reserve Bank of India was necessary for the transfer of those shares in the name of the complainant. The complainant requested M/s. Rungta Irrigation Ltd. several times to transfer those shares in his name but M/s. Rungta Irrigation Ltd. expressed their inability to do so for want of permission from the Reserve Bank of India. It is also pointed out that accused never told the complainant about the aforesaid fact at the time of selling the shares and no such permission was given by RBI. When the complainant failed to take back the shares then he asked the accused No. l on 20-10-1998 to refund the amount and take back the shares, which he had purchased from them. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that false and fabricated case has been filed against these petitioners. It was further pointed out that the present complaint petition is a counter blast to the earlier case lodged by the petitioners against M/s. Rungta Irrigation Ltd. and the fir was sent to the Crime Branch of Delhi police through post office on 4-9-1998 and the same was duly received there on 22-9-1998. The Crime Branch of Delhi, after investigation, found a prima facie case against the complainant and others then a formal fir was lodged at Prasad Nagar Police Station on 30-11-1998 (Annexure 3) and after proper investigation Delhi Police submitted charge-sheet on 8-1-2002 (Annexure 4 ). It is claimed that petitioners have never sold any of their shares, which were purchased by them from M/s. Rungta Irrigation Ltd. on 18-3-1995 because the shares were not delivered to the petitioners by M/s. Rungta irrigation Ltd. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, M/s. Rungta Irrigation ltd. , although never delivered the shares to the petitioners but chartered accountant /auditor of M/s. Rungta Irrigation ltd. , Mr. O. P. Tulsyan picked up the shares on the instruction of Mr. R. S. Rungta, Chairman of M/s. Rungta Irrigation Ltd. through the use of a forged authority letter and sold to the 75 purchasers. , although never delivered the shares to the petitioners but chartered accountant /auditor of M/s. Rungta Irrigation ltd. , Mr. O. P. Tulsyan picked up the shares on the instruction of Mr. R. S. Rungta, Chairman of M/s. Rungta Irrigation Ltd. through the use of a forged authority letter and sold to the 75 purchasers. Two of the so-called purchasers are Finance Company and 73 are individuals and all are related to Rungtas and one of them is complainant of the present case, whose name is appearing at serial No. 41 in the purchaser list (Annexure 5 ). On coming to know about the fact petitioners sent a legal notice through an Advocate to M/s. Rungta Irrigation Ltd. demanding their shares but they did not give reply (Annexure 6 ). Thereafter petitioners through their letter dated 18-11-1997 brought the matter to the Security and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) for not receiving their purchased shares from M/s. Rungta Irrigation ltd. (Annexure-7 ). The petitioners also filed a petition through an Advocate before Company law Board for delivery of their shares and payment of compensation for the delay in delivery. On 16-11-1998 the petitioners again filed a petition before the Company law Board (Annexure 8) and in this way petitioners wrote several letters to several authorities concerned and thus the present case is a counter-blast to the case filed by the petitioners before the Crime Branch of delhi Police. By an order dated 1-10-2001 the Enforcement Directorate issued a show cause notice to Rungta and others for violating fera 73 while transferring the said shares to 75 purchasers. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that after a proper enquiry, cognizance in the case was taken. Learned counsel further pointed out that whatever points have been raised on behalf of the petitioners are points which are to be considered at the stage of trial. In this connection, learned counsel placed reliance upon 1996 (1) Supreme Court Cases 542 (1996 Cri LJ 1127) wherein it has been held that mala fide or animus of complainant or prosecution is not relevant for quashing of the FIR or complaint case. It was further held that power to quash the proceeding should be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances and while quashing the proceeding, high Court should not judge probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegation made. It was further held that power to quash the proceeding should be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances and while quashing the proceeding, high Court should not judge probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegation made. Learned counsel further placed reliance upon AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1216 (1999 Cri LJ 1833) wherein it has been held that complainant is not required to reproduce verbatim of ingredients of offence alleged in body of complaint. It was further held that intention is the crux of accused persons. Learned counsel further pointed out that from the contents of the complaint petition, it will appear that petitioners wanted to cheat the complainant and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cognizance order does not require any interference. ( 6 ) ON perusal of documents on record and after hearing the submissions of the parties, I am of the view that one thing is clear that the petitioners had lodged the complaint with the Crime Branch of Delhi police and Delhi Police after preliminary investigation found a prima facie case against the complainant, then a formal FIR was lodged at Prasad Nagar Police Station on 30-11-1998 (annexure-3) and police, after investigation submitted charge-sheet on 8-1-2002, whereas complainant has filed this complaint case on 24-11-1998. Thus, this instant complaint case is a counter-blast to the lodging of the FIR by the petitioners and further that, Crime Branch of Delhi Police after investigation found that complainant purchased or complainant was given shares of M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited and, complainant is one of the 73 persons among whom M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited distributed shares, which will be clear from annexure-5. The name of purchaser appearing in serial No. 41 of Annexure 5 tallies with the name of complainant of this complaint petition and, their addresses are also the same. In both the cases, name of Firoz Abdi appears and the complainant is Firoz Abdi as well as name appearing at serial No. 41 (Annexure 5) is Firoz Abdi and in both cases, address is the same. Thus, from perusal of this document, it appears that complainant purchased shares of M/s. Rungta Irrigation limited and he has purchased share worth 2000 and the complaint has also been filed alleging purchase of 2000 shares. Thus, from perusal of this document, it appears that complainant purchased shares of M/s. Rungta Irrigation limited and he has purchased share worth 2000 and the complaint has also been filed alleging purchase of 2000 shares. Complainant has nowhere alleged that he has purchased 2000 shares from the petitioners besides 2000 shares from M/s. Rungta Irrigation limited, and thus, he has suppressed this fact in his complaint petition and brought this case in the name of purchase of 2000 shares from the petitioners. Thus, it is clear from the documents (Annexure 5) that complainant was actually allotted 2000 shares by M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited and, therefore, continuance of the proceeding against the petitioners will be abuse of the process of the Court. In this connection, reliance may be placed upon 1992 Supreme court 604 in which several grounds have been given where High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, may quash the proceeding, but this power should be sparingly exercised. It is clear that since, on behalf of the petitioners, complaint has been lodged with the Crime Branch of Delhi police and Delhi Police after investigation has found prima facie case and formal FIR was registered and after coming to know of the fact M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited through one of its employee namely, Firoz abdi has got this case filed, thus filing of the case is actuated with malice. ( 7 ) ON the basis of the discussions made above, I am of the view that there is merit in this application. In the result, this application is allowed and the order dated 12-1-1999 passed in Complaint Case No. 627 of 1998 is hereby quashed. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .