9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... holding that the offence under section 420 of IPC is also made out against present applicants from the complaint. Petition allowed in part. - M.Cr.C.No.12184/2012 And M.Cr.C.No.12591/2012 - - - Dated:- 23-10-2018 - Rajeev Kumar Dubey , J For the Applicants : Shri Amit Mishra, learned counsel For the Respondent : Shri Akhilendra Singh, learned G.A. ORDER This common order shall govern the disposal of M.Cr.C.No.12184/2012 12591/2012 filed by two different applicants. 2. These petitions under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. have been filed for quashing of proceeding of Criminal Case-R.T.No.744/2012 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhopal. 3. Brief facts which are relevant for the disposal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He sold all his shares i.e. 25 shares of Glaxosmithkline, 500 shares of I.T.C., 20 shares of Infosys and 100 shares of Pfizer and also spent the amount ₹ 2,32,908.71, which was remaining in the complainant s trading account. He also purchased the shares of other companies for complainant without his permission. On that complainant met with Sudhir Kala and also lodged the complaint before Security and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and National Stock Exchange (NSE) and also lodged a complaint at Police Station Shahpura. On that Sudhir Kala at the instance of applicants Asit C. Mehta and Jaideep P. Vaidya executed an undertaking in favour of complaint on 07/04/2010 and admitted his guilt and also admitted liability of ₹ 2,32,90 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essions Judge, Bhopal discharged the applicants from the offence punishable under Section 467, 468 of the IPC and observing that prima facie only offence under Section 406, 420, 120-B of the IPC is made out against the applicants remanded the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal to try the same under these offences. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicant Asit C. Mehta Investment Interrmediates Ltd. is the Stock Broking Company duly registered by the security and exchange Board of India SEBI and applicant Jaideep P. Vaidya is working in the company as compliance officer. The work of applicant Jaideep P. Vaidya was to look into the complaint, if any, of the clients of the company. Applicant Jaideep P. V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posit any amount with the company and therefore, no offence of cheating is made out against the applicant. In fact alleged transaction took place between the complainant and Sudhir Kala, without notice or knowledge of the applicants. So applicants are not liable for alleged transaction. Learned Judicial Magistrate as well as learned ASJ without appreciating these facts wrongly found that offence under Section 406, 420, 120-B of the IPC is made out against the applicants. So the complaint be quashed against the applicants. 7. This Court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by the learned counsel of the applicants. 8. It is undisputed that the complainant used to buy and sell the shares through the applicant compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplicant company and his balance amount of ₹ 2,32,908.71 was also deposited in the trading account, then how did co-accused Sudhir Kala sold the complainant s shares deposited in his demat account without knowledge of the company and its officers. If the company officials were not involved in the disputed transaction then why the shares were transferred by the company in the demat account of complainant. So prima facie there is no reason to disbelieve the averment of complainant that co-accused Sudhir Kala in connivance with applicant Asit C. Mehta Investment Interrmediates Limited and Jaideep P. Vaidya misappropriated the applicant s shares and money. Only on the basis that complainant had received cheque regarding alleged amount f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e considered opinion of this Court learned JMFC as well as learned XXII Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal committed mistake in holding that the offence under section 420 of IPC is also made out against present applicants from the complaint. 13. Hence, both the petitions are partly allowed and the impugned order dated 16/11/2017 passed by XXII Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal stating that the offence under section 420 of IPC is also made against the present applicants from the complaint is set aside. Trial Court is directed to proceed with the case regarding other offences as directed by the XXII Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal. It also appears from the record that the complaint is pending since year 2012, so trial Court is expected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
