Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 89 (PAT)

Anil Agrawal v. State Of Bihar

2007-01-11

GHANSHYAM PRASAD

body2007
Judgment 1. This application has been filed under Sec. 482 of he Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order taking cognizance dated 2.11.2004 passed by Shri S.K. Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 2366(C) of 2004 thereby and thereunder the cognizance has been taken under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471/120B against five persons including these petitioners. 2. The petitioners are the Managing Director, Directors and Vice-Chairman of Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd., Vedanta, Bombay which produces and deals in copper rods having mines and processing units at different countries including India. According to the prosecution story the complainant-Opposite Party No. 2 was authorised Broker of Magadh Stock Exchange having office at Budha Marg, Patna and deals in sales and purchase of shares of different companies. On 2.11.1999 he purchased one hundred shares of petitioners Industry worth Rs. 29,600.00 from one Ashutosh Kumar Gupta, accused no.1. Ashutosh Kumar Gupta after receipt of money through cheque signed on relevant papers for transfer of all shares in the name of the complainant. The complainant kept documents on his table but the same was lost for which he gave information to Kotwali Police on 4.10.2000. Thereafter the complainant approached PCS Industries Ltd., the agent of the petitioners company for transfer of shares in his name. The documents were forwarded to the company. However, no transfer was done. Later on it came to the knowledge of Opposite Party No. 2 that accused no.1, Ashutosh Kumar Gupta actually obtained the shares in question after forging signature of one Raj Shekhar in conspiracy with these petitioners and dishonestly and fraudulently induced the Opposite Party No. 2 to purchase the forged and fabricated shares. 3. It is submitted by Mrs. Priyadarshini Y. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners, that absolutely there is no ingredient of cheating or misappropriation in the allegations made in the complaint petition against the petitioners. The petitioners have no concern with the purchase and sale of shares of the company nor any share of the company was directly purchased by the complainant from any of the petitioners. The company of the petitioners refused to transfer the shares in question in the name of the complainant as it was found forged and fabricated. It is further submitted that the prosecution of the petitioners is out and out abuse of process of the court. The company of the petitioners refused to transfer the shares in question in the name of the complainant as it was found forged and fabricated. It is further submitted that the prosecution of the petitioners is out and out abuse of process of the court. The complainant has actually filed this case with oblique and ulterior motive only in order to take undue advantage from the petitioners, and not to secure their conviction. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 opposed the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. On mere perusal of the allegations levelled in the complaint petition it is quite apparent that absolutely there is no allegation of cheating- or misappropriation against the petitioners who are officials of the company having its Head Office in Bombay. The entire allegation is against one Ashutosh Kumar Gupta. These petitioners have been made accused just to take undue advantage. The company rightly refused to transfer the shares in name of the complainant as it was forged and fabricated. Apparently, the prosecution of the petitioners is an abuse of process of the Court. 5. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this application is allowed and the impugned order is hereby quashed but only in respect of these petitioners.