Order Since both the cases arise out of the same case were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. It is the case of the informant Paras Nath Prasad (opposite party no. 2) that he was having Demat account with ICICI Bank through whom he was dealing with the matter relating to sale and purchase of the shares. When he came across with one Manish Kumar, Branch Manager of India Infoline Limited, he expressed his desire that certain shares be transferred through India Infoline Limited instead of ICICI Bank. Upon which Manish Kumar informed that it is not possible for the India Infoline Limited to transfer the shares unless shares are transferred from IGIGI Bank to India Infoline Limited.' When the informant expressed his desire to get it transferred to India Infoline Limited, Manish Kumar introduced Rakesh Ranjan Singh, (petitioner in Gr. M.P. No. 1550 of 2010) to him who Was holding the post of Relationship Manager of India Infoline Limited and said that he will be doing needful in the matter. At the same time, it was told by Manish Kumar that for the purpose of getting the shares transferred from IGIGI Bank to India Infoline Limited, he is required to put his signatures on the transfer slips and rest of the details would be filled up by Rakesh Ranjan Singh. Accordingly, the informant having put his and his wife's signature over the transfer slips gave it to Manish Kumar, who in turn, gave it to Rakesh Ranjan Singh for doing needful for transferring the shares in the manner given below:- 1. From S.B.1. demat account to India Infoline Limited de mat Alc No.1204470003929083 holder Paras Nath Prasad and Sandhya Prasad. 2. From ICICI demat account no.41576889 to India Infoline Limited demat A/c No. 1204470004091451 holder Sandhya Prasad and Paras Nath Prasad. 3. Further case is that so far transfer of the shares from SBI demat account to India Infoline Limited demat account is concerned, that was done but with respect to transfer of shares from demat account of ICICI Bank to demat account of India Infoline Limited is cO'lcerned Rakesh Ranjan Singh fraudulent I go• the shares worth Rs. 25 lacs trans erred In his account no. 1201092600197814 which he was having with Motilal Oswal Securities Limited. 25 lacs trans erred In his account no. 1201092600197814 which he was having with Motilal Oswal Securities Limited. When the informant came to know about the mischief being done by Rakesh Ranjan Singh, he tried to contact him frantically but always failed. He even could not be contacted on cell phone. Thereupon, he made complaint in this regard to the Branch Manager, ICICI Bank and even to the Branch Manager of India Infoline Limited. On 29.5.2009, Manish Kumar, Branch Manager and Sanjay Singh (petitioner in Cr. M.P. No. 1582 of 2010), Territorial Manager of India Infoline Limited came to the residence of the informant to discuss and negotiate with him about the fraud committed by Rakesh Ranjan Singh. Both of them said that the address given by Rakesh Ranjan Singh in the employees' record was incorrect but, in fact, he came to know that the address given in the employees' record was quite correct and that Manish Kumar and Sanjay Singh of India Infoline Limited did not make any effort to restore all the scrips to ICICI demat account. 4. On the said allegations, a case was lodged which was registered as Bistupur P.S. Case No.185 of 2009 under Sections 419, 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The police after investigation submitted chargesheet, upon which cognizance of the offences was taken under Sections 419, 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and others. 5. Being aggrieved with the said order, these two applications (Cr. M.P. No.1582 of 2010 and Cr. M.P. No. 1550 of 2010) have been filed on behalf of Sanjay Singh and Rakesh Ranjan Singh respectively for quashing of the order taking cognizance. 6. Mr. 5. Being aggrieved with the said order, these two applications (Cr. M.P. No.1582 of 2010 and Cr. M.P. No. 1550 of 2010) have been filed on behalf of Sanjay Singh and Rakesh Ranjan Singh respectively for quashing of the order taking cognizance. 6. Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has never been alleged to have done any act in the matter of fraudulent transfer of the shares from ICICI demat account to the account held by Rakesh Ranjan Singh, rather the petitioner has simply been alleged to have misguided the informant in the manner that correct address of Rakesh Ranjan Singh was told to be incorrect and that the petitioner was not at all interested to negotiate and discuss the matter with the informant but these acts had nothing to do with the allegation of fraudulent transfer of the shares from the ICICI demat account to the account of Rakesh Ranjan Singh. Since, the petitioner did not play any act in the matter relating to fraudulent transfer of the shares, the court committed illegality in taking cognizance of the offences and hence, the order taking cognizance is fit to be set aside. 7. Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Rakesh Ranjan Singh submitted that it has been alleged by the informant that this petitioner got the shares held by the informant transferred fraudulently to his own account contrary to his instruction but the fact is that the informant who was a candidate for the Parliamentary Election of the year 2009 approached the petitioner and requested to manage his shares till election is over• so that the petitioner may provide money if required during canvassing. Accordingly, the informant having filled up the forms giving details of shares held by him and his wife put his signature over the transfer slips and handed over it to petitioner for transfer of shares. 8. Under these circumstances, demat account of the informant was transferred on 20.4.2009 from ICICI Bank to the account of petitioner. 9. It was further submitted that after the election was over, the petitioner under the instruction of the informant restored the shares worth Rs. 20 lacs after realizing of the necessary charges/fee for rendering the said services but this fact has been suppressed. 10. 9. It was further submitted that after the election was over, the petitioner under the instruction of the informant restored the shares worth Rs. 20 lacs after realizing of the necessary charges/fee for rendering the said services but this fact has been suppressed. 10. It was also submitted that when the informant fell in need of money during process of election, he got some share sold through the petitioner and realized the sale proceeds. 11. Thus, it was submitted that under the circumstances stated above, the petitioner cannot be said to have defrauded the informant or cheated the informant as it was with the consent of the informant, shares, were transferred to the account of the petitioner. 12. In this regard, it was further submitted that the plea which is being taken by the informant that he had simply put his' signature at the relevant place over the transfer slips whereas contents' had been filled up by the petitioner is not acceptable for the reason that whatever entries were made, it was within the personal knowledge of the informant which were never known to the petitioner and as such, allegation that forms were filled up by this petitioner in order to defraud the informant is liable to be rejected outrightly. In law also the aforesaid plea is not available to the informant as once the informant has accepted about affixing of his and his wife signature, presumption would be there of the correctness of the content. 13. In this regard, learned counsel has referred to a decision rendered in a case of Grasim Industries Limited and Another vs. Agarwal Steel [ (2010)1 SCC 83 ] [: 2010(1) JLJR (SC)192].. 14. Learned counsel further submitted that in the background of the case as stated above, the petitioner in the circumstances can never be said to have either cheated the informant or got the money misappropriated fraudulently. 15. Learned counsel in this respect has referred to a decision rendered in a case of S.W. Palanitkar and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others [ 2001 (8) Supreme 216 ] and Dalip Kaur and Others vs. Jagnar Singh and Another [2009(4) PLJR 261 (SC)]. " f6. As against this, Mr. Sum it Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. " f6. As against this, Mr. Sum it Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 submitted that so far the case of Sanjay Singh is concerned, though there has been no allegation of any overt act being committed with respect to fraudulent transfer of the shares but there, in the facts and circumstances, there appears to be his connivance with the Branch Manager as weH as the said Rakesh Ranjan Singh as this petitioner alongwith Branch Manager had approached the informant to discuss and negotiate with respect to fraud committed by Rakesh Ranjan Singh and that the petitioner misguided the informant over the correct address of Rakesh Ranjan Singh. 17. So far as the petitioner, Rakesh Ranjan Singh is concerned, it was submitted that allegations levelled against him do constitute offences under which cognizance has been taken and as such, order taking cognizance never warrants to be quashed. 18. In this regard, it was submitted that it is the case of the informant that when it was intimated to him by the Branch Manager that for getting the demat account transferred from the ICICI Bank to India Infoline Limited, he as well as his wife need to submit transfer slips after filling it up, the informant and his wife in good faith put signatures over the blank transfer slips with an understending that the same on the basis of details of shares given would be filled up by the petitioner, Rakesh Ranjan Singh but the Rakesh Ranjan Singh by filling up the forms got the share transferred in his name fraudulently. It was stated by Mr. Gadodia that he does have instruction that all the money which the petitioner fraudulently misappropriated has never been returned to the informant. 19. From the facts and submissions noted above, it does appear that there has been absolutely no allegation of any overt act being committed by the petitioner, Sanjay Singh in regard to fraudulent transfer of the shares but he seems to have been made accused on the allegation that he misguided the informant over the correct address of Rakesh Ranjan Singh and that he alongwith the Branch Manager had approached the informant to discuss and negotiate the matter relating to fraudulent act committed by Rakesh Ranjan Singh but these two acts never constitute any offence of forgery or misappropriation or cheating. Therefore, the court below certainly committed illegality in taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 419, 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against this petitioner and hence, the same being fit to be set aside is hereby set aside. 20. So far the petitioner, Rakesh Ranjan Singh is concerned, he has been alleged to have got the shares transferred in his name whereas as per the oral agreement/advice, shares were to be transferred from the demat account of ICICI to demat account of India Infoline Limited. A plea has been taken on behalf of the petitioner that it was the advice of the informant to get the shares transferred to the account of the petitioner which would be evident from the transfer slips which bear the signatures of the informant and his wife who have never denied it. 21. Further plea in this regard is that certain informations which have been given in the transfer slips were so personal that the petitioner could not have knowledge of it and, therefore, any plea taken by the complainant that he has simply put signatures over the transfer slips and rest of the contents were filled up by this petitioner cannot be accepted and hence, whatever allegation of fraudulent act has been alleged, that is ex facie appears to be false. 22. At this stage, it be recorded that scope of exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code by the High Court to prevent abuse of process or otherwise to secure ends of justice were set out in details by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan lal [1992 Supp.(1) SGG 335], One of such grounds is as follows:- "Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused." . 23. Here in the instant case, cognizance of the offence of forgery and misappropriation has been taken on the allegation that the petitioner against the advice/instruction of the complainant got the shares transferred from the demat account of IGIGI to his own account instead of getting it transferred to the account of India Infoline Limited. 23. Here in the instant case, cognizance of the offence of forgery and misappropriation has been taken on the allegation that the petitioner against the advice/instruction of the complainant got the shares transferred from the demat account of IGIGI to his own account instead of getting it transferred to the account of India Infoline Limited. The said allegation is being sought to be dispelled on the ground that transfer was made as per the advice of the complainant which is evident from transfer slip which bears the signature of the complainant and on this basis further plea has been taken that if the signature gets admitted by the complainant, presumption of the correctness of the contents would be there. In support of this plea, reliance has been placed in a case of Grasim Industries Limited and Another vs. Agarwal Steel (supra). 24. In the decision referred to above, it has been held that when a person signs a document, presumption is that he has read the document properly and understood it and only then he has affixed his signature, unless there is proof of force or fraud. 25. Here in the instant case, it is the case of the complainant that after giving advice to the petitioner to get the shares transferred from the demat account of ICICI to the account of India Infoline Limited, the complainant and his wife put their signatures on the slips leaving all the particulars supplied by the informant to be filled up by the petitioner whereby the petitioner Rakesh Ranjan Singh filled up the particulars for transferring the account from ICICI to his own account. Therefore, the allegation of fraudulent act is there. The plea which has been taken on behalf of the petitioner Rakesh Ranjan Singh to show -his innocence should be decided only when the parties would be leading their evidences. 26. Therefore, where allegation does constitute offence of forgery and misappropriation, the order taking cognizance in view of the decision rendered in a case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (supra) never warrants to be quashed. 27. In the result, Cr. M.P. No. 1582 of 2010 is hereby allowed whereas Cr. M.P. No. 1550 of 2010 stands dismissed;