Judgment 1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing the order dated 11.4.2002 passed by Shri A.K. Shrivastava, J.M. 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 769-C of 2001 whereby he was directed to issue summons against the petitioner for facing trial under Sections 420, 409, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. It appears that opposite party No. 2 Ram Chandra Prasad has filed a petition of complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna against Prudential Capital Market Limited, its Chairman Binod Vaid and Director P.K. Sarkar along with the petitioner Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) for taking action under Sections 409, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Cognizance was taken and after examination of the complainant on S.A. and examination of a witness, the learned Magistrate by the impugned order directed to issue summons against the above accused persons including the petitioner. 4. The case of the complainant in the complaint petition is that accused Prudential Capital Market Limited had made an advertisement in January, 1994 for public issue of equity shares of Rs. 10/- for a price of Rs. 50/- with attractive returns. On this allurement the complainant applied for 100 shares and deposited Rs. 2500/- with the application. He subsequently paid the remaining amount of Rs. 2500/- on allotment of shares and share certificates were issued to him. 5. Subsequently another offer was made by the accused company for the purchase of share-cum-convertable bond in Part-A and Part-B for Rs. 125/-. The complainant invested Rs. 6000/- in those shares. 6. The complainant received dividend for the year 1994-95. The accused persons again issued final call money notice dated 23.2.1996 and demanded Rs. 2500/- for conversion of Part-B of the Convertable Bond issued earlier for which the complainant had already paid Rs. 3500/- at the time of application. The complainant, however, did not pay the amount as a doubt cropped up in his mind about the financial position of the company. The accused persons, however, thereafter paid a little dividend of Rs. 662/- for 200 shares for the year 1995-96 had retained the dividends for 100 shares (Part-B). Thereafter the accused persons did not pay any dividend and accused Nos. 2 and 3 (Chairperson and the Director) conspiring together misappropriated the invested money. 7. The accused persons, however, thereafter paid a little dividend of Rs. 662/- for 200 shares for the year 1995-96 had retained the dividends for 100 shares (Part-B). Thereafter the accused persons did not pay any dividend and accused Nos. 2 and 3 (Chairperson and the Director) conspiring together misappropriated the invested money. 7. It is further alleged that the petitioner (accused No. 4) had permitted the other accused persons for public issues and to collect money from the complainant and others. The complainant, hence, sent a letter to the petitioner (accused No. 4) to save his interest in the invested money, by registered post but this accused in collusion with others refused to accept the letter. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner SEBI is a regulatory body and its function is to take suitable measures to protect the interest of investors in securities and to promote and regulate the securities market. It vets the offer document of a company but does not take any responsibility either for the financial soundness of any scheme of project or the correctness of any statement made in the offer documents. In every offer document there is disclaimer clause "absolving SEBI for the financial soundness of any scheme or project for which issue is proposed to be made. 9. He also submitted that the SEBI has nothing to do with the internal affairs of the company. Then the address of the petitioner shown in the complaint petition refers to Post Bag. It is, therefore, evident that if any registered letter is sent on Post Bag address, the same would not be acknowledged. Besides this, mere sending of a letter and non-receipt thereof is no ground to infer that the letter was not received in collusion with other accused persons. 10. The contention of the learned counsel, hence, is that even if the allegations made in the complaint petition are accepted, no offence is made out against the petitioner. 11. I find substance in the submission of the learned counsel and for the reasons mentioned by him, I do not find that any offence is made out against the petitioner. 12. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the impugned order, so far as it relates to issue of summons against the petitioner, is hereby quashed.