Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1650 (PAT)

Reliance Industries Limited v. State Of Bihar

2007-10-08

S.C.JHA

body2007
Judgment 1. Petitioners namely Reliance Industries Ltd. (A Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956), petitioner no. 2, Dhirubhai H. Ambani and petitioner no. 3, Mukesh D. Ambani have filed this application for quashing the proceeding pending in the Court of Shri Deepak Kr. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 1854C of 2001 filed by the respondent no. 2 Bhanwarlal Bothra. 2. The petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 24th January, 2001, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, taking cognizance for the offences allegedly committed by them under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Mehta, learned A.P.P. for the State. Nobody appears for opposite party no. 2, although, efforts to serve notice upon him has been taken and even, the learned counsel representing him in the trial court has been personally served notice by the learned trial court in terms of the direction given by this Courts order dated 4.12.2006. 4. It has also been submitted to take notice of the fact that the petitioner no. 2, Dhirubhai H. Ambani is no more in this world ans as such, his name has been delected vide order dated 4.12.2006. 5. A complaint was filed by respondent no. 2 claiming himself as care-taker and holding power of attorney on behalf of Pramod Kumar Bothra, the Proprietor of Bothra Brothers, alleging therein that Complainant purchased 500 shares of Reliance Polyethylene Ltd. (RPEL) and 400 shares of Reliance Polypropylene Ltd. (RPPL) from the secondary market and deposited for transfer of the shares to the Reliance Consultancy Services (RCS), accused no. 6 in the complaint petition, the Reliance Consultancy Services (RCS) did not return the said shares duly transferred in favour of the family members of Pramod Bothra. 6. It has been submitted that complaint as filed is not at all maintainable and entertainable, so far as these petitioners are concerned. The opposite party no. 2 cannot be said to have been the person in whose name the alleged shares were sent for transfer. The fact as stated in the complaint petition has not been supported from the statement of Pramod Kumar Bothra. The opposite party no. 2 cannot be said to have been the person in whose name the alleged shares were sent for transfer. The fact as stated in the complaint petition has not been supported from the statement of Pramod Kumar Bothra. Further submission is that save and except, a list of documents giving description of the shares of RPPL/RPEL and copies of transfer deeds, no documents were ever produced in the court below. On the basis of aforesaid presentation of documents, no offence could be said to have been committed attracting Sections 406 and 420 of the I.P.C. Further submission is that said shares were launched in the year 1994 but complaint was filed after long six years for which there is absence of any explanation. No documents have been produced to demonstrate that purported shares were purchased from the secondary market or launched for transfer. So far entrustment of such shares are concerned, submission has been advanced to this effect that respondent/opposite party no. 2 has neither entrusted nor delivered share certificates as stated above, Moreover, the learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate that the petitioner no. 1 is Corporate Body, whereas no cause of action on account of death of petitioner no. 2 could be said to have arisen, amongst petitioner no. 2. So far petitioner No. 3 is concerned, he happens to be the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of the said Company. The transfer is being carried out by the Registrar and Share Transfer Agencies, the function and dealing of which is not at all linked with the day-to-day official transaction of petitioner no. 3. Even if there were some lapses, it could only be attributed to the Share transfer Agency, but, there is no paper on the record to show that at any point of time, such shares were ever sent for transfer or were received by the Share Transfer Agency of the petitioners Company. 7. It has thus been submitted that for that reason in spite of notice and all attempts and efforts for appearance of opposite party no. 2, he has deliberately avoided his appearance to meet all such points raised on his behalf. 7. It has thus been submitted that for that reason in spite of notice and all attempts and efforts for appearance of opposite party no. 2, he has deliberately avoided his appearance to meet all such points raised on his behalf. Moreover, there is also specific provision under Section 111 of the Companies Act in respect of such grievance of the aggrieved shareholders, in case where such transfers of shares are not effected but the opposite party instead of invoking appropriate jurisdiction of the authority constituted under the law i.e. Indian Companies Act, has lodged Criminal Case in the Court of C.J.M.,which is neither maintainable nor sustainable. 8. The learned A.P.P. for the State has also been heard who has, in all fairness, submitted that in the fact and circumstances of the case, the appropriate forum of the Companies Act has not been invoked by the aggrieved shareholders, even if it is held to be genuine lapses on the part of Share Transfer Agency of the concerned firm. The petitioners, having entrusted such portfolio in respect of such transfer of shares to a different Company, have nothing to do with such routine transfer matters. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, from continuance of the criminal proceeding in the court below, will only amount to an abuse of the process of law and wastage of valuable time of the Court. 10. The entire proceeding including aforesaid order in question now, stands quashed and the petition, thus is, allowed.