Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 726 (MP)

SHIKHA AGRAWAL v. STATE OF M. P.

2015-07-14

ROHIT ARYA

body2015
ORDER : ROHIT ARYA, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has approached this Court with the relief in the form of direction to respondents/police authorities to register an offence on the complaint made by petitioner (Annexure P/1). On notices being issued, respondents put their appearance through counsel and filed their respective counter affidavit. 2. Learned counsel for respondents No. 4 to 6 submits that the nature of allegations made in the complaint in fact and in effect are in the realm of civil dispute and no criminality is involved in the matter as the dispute relates to entries in demat account which can always be reconciled by taking recourse to the bank record of documents and if the petitioner is still aggrieved by the reconciliation, she can always approach the arbitration for resolution of any dispute as regards the entries in the demat account and consequential mandatory claim, if any. 3. Contravention the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as a matter of fact the credit shown in the demat account was to the extent of rupees eight crores fifty six lacs; however, suddenly, the amount shown in the amount reduced to nil in a span of three years from September, 2010 to September, 2013 without any knowledge and information to the petitioner. It is submitted that it is a case of fraud and forgery committed with the demat account of the petitioner. She is subjected to serious loss of money for no justification and therefore, there is an element of criminality involved in the management of demat account by respondents bank. Hence, the allegations made in the complaint required to be addressed by way of investigation by the police. 4. Respondents No. 1 to 3/State have denied allegations that respondents are not taking any action over the complaint made by the petitioner. It is submitted that as per directives issued by Hon. Supreme Court in Lalita Kumar's case they first have to ascertain the relevancy and irrelevancy of the allegations so made and thereafter apply their mind as to whether on the complaint so made investigation is required or not. In the present case the complaint is at the stage of enquiry, hence, no malice or motive can be attributed against the police authorities. 5. In the present case the complaint is at the stage of enquiry, hence, no malice or motive can be attributed against the police authorities. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in the opinion of this Court at this stage this Court refrains from commenting upon the rival contentions, instead the entire matter is made over to the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior/respondent No. 2 to either himself or direct any competent responsible officer to look into the complaint filed by the petitioner and if need be, notice may be issued to respondent-bank for consideration of complaint and thereafter take a decision as regards relevancy and irrelevancy of the nature of allegations made in the complaint as well as, as to whether the allegations so made give rise to a civil liability or criminal liability and thereafter proceed to take action in light of decision of Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. and Others, (2014) 2 SCC 1 . Let the aforesaid exercise be completed within three months from the date of communication of certified copy of order passed today. With the aforesaid direction and observance, writ petition stands disposed of. Disposed Off.