Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2247 (RAJ)

D. K. Gupta v. State of Rajasthan

2013-12-11

NISHA GUPTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - This Misc. Petition under Section 482 has been filed against the order dated 25.8.2011 passed by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No. 3, Jaipur Metropolitan in Cr. Case No. 532/2006 whereby charges have been framed against the present petitioner for the offence under Section 420 IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City, Jaipur which was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the concerned Police Station and FIR No. 310/2002 was registered. The allegation in the FIR was that complainant purchased 23,100 shares which were sent through registered post on 15.7.97 for transfer in his account to the office of Raymonds Synthetics Ltd. Allahabad. The said company transferred 6600 shares in the name of respondent. Remaining 16500 shares were not transferred in his account and returned back. He time and again represented to the company but shares have not been transferred in his account with an intention to grab the amount. After conclusion of investigation, final report was filed. The Investigation Officer also investigated the matter from Karvy Consultants Ltd., (who is currenty the Registrar and Share Transfer Agents of erstwhile Raymond Synthetics Ltd.). On submission of negative final report, protest petition was moved by respondent No. 2 and after recording his statement, cognizance has been taken against the preset petitioner for the above offence and revision was also dismissed, hence this petition. 3. The contention of the present petitioner is that no specific allegation has been lodged against present petitioner, initially FIR was lodged against Secretary, Raymond Synthetics Ltd., thereafter cognizance has been taken against authorised Secretary of MCS Ltd. whereas present petitioner is not the Secretary and nothing has been shown that he is an authorised person. Twice closure report has been filed in favour of present petitioner he has not committed any cheating with the respondent. The shares could not be transferred due to the fact that transfer deeds were time barred, hence the charges be quashed. 4. None appeared on behalf of respondent. The Public Prosecutor has submitted that charges have rightly been framed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders as well as the documents produced by the petitioner. 6. 4. None appeared on behalf of respondent. The Public Prosecutor has submitted that charges have rightly been framed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders as well as the documents produced by the petitioner. 6. On a bare reading of FIR and opinion of investigation, it can safely be concluded that the allegations against the present petitioner is that 16,500 shares could not be transferred in the name of respondent and after investigation, it has been concluded that due to time barred transfer deeds, the shares could not be transferred and a letter to this effect has also been sent to respondent. There is no averment in the FIR or in the statement of respondent that present petitioner was in charge of affair of the company or present petitioner is responsible for transfer of shares Annex.8 letter dated 8.4.98 has been placed on record which was written by MCS Ltd. to respondent informing him that 16,500 shares have been returned under objections and they can be re- lodged along with fresh transfer deeds or after revalidation of the same from the Registrar of the Companies. Admittedly, the share certificates have been returned to the respondent hence no monetary loss has been occurred to respondent No. 2 and counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the provisions of Section 108 of Companies Act,1956 which provides the procedure for transfer of shares and under Section 111, appeal has also been provided against refusal of transfer and registration, hence respondent was having alternative remedy for getting the transfer deeds, the court below has not considered the facts in right perspective. There is nothing to show that the present petitioner was the incharge of business of the company. Admittedly, shares were sent to Raymods Synthesis Ltd., present petitioner was nothing to do with the transfer of the shares and during investigation, it amply came on record that transfer deeds were time barred hence they could not be transferred. There is nothing to show that the present petitioner was the incharge of business of the company. Admittedly, shares were sent to Raymods Synthesis Ltd., present petitioner was nothing to do with the transfer of the shares and during investigation, it amply came on record that transfer deeds were time barred hence they could not be transferred. There was no mens rea on the part of present petitioner and cognizance has been taken against the preset petitioner in mechanical way without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case in right perspective and charges have also been framed mechanically.In view of the above, there is no material on record to charge the present petitioner for the offence under Section 420 IPC and charges be quashed.Consequently, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 25.8.2011 passed by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No. 3, Jaipur Metropolitan in Cr. Case No. 532/2006 is quashed and petitioner is discharged from the offence u/s 420 IPC. *******