9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eant to protect the interests of the investors HELD THAT:- No investor or customer has lodged any complaint with the respondent that the petitioners have cheated them and apart from the above said reason, the respondent has not levelled any specific allegation in that regard in the complaint. In the absence of any complaint, there was no cause of action to lodge the complaint. These are all the grounds have to be given into the fulfledged complaint and the complaint was lodged by the respondent, after recording the evidence. The Trial Court found prima-facie made out and had taken cognizance. Therefore, the complaint cannot be thrown out. As relying on M. Jayanthi [ 2019 (12) TMI 1319 - SUPREME COURT ] and Arvind Khanna [ 2019 (10) TMI 672 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Plantation bonds, etc., has to be put to place. Hence, in the year 1999, the respondent notified regulations for regulating the activities of Collective Investment Scheme Companies titles as Securities and Exchange Board of India (Collective Investment Scheme) Regulations Act,1999. The petitioners have not complied with the respondent directives meant to protect the interests of the investors. The petitioners averred that the complaint was not taken cognizance on the statement given by the affected customers. No independent witnesses like the former customers or investors who have been allegedly cheated by the first petitioner company have been examined or cited as witnesses in the complaint. 4. That apart, no investor or customer has lodg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omplaint case to its original file for being proceeded with on merits in accordance with law. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while dealing in respect of the very same issue in Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019 in the case of Central Bureau of Invstigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, wherein, it has been held as follows: 19. After perusing the impugned order and on hearing the submissions made by the learned senior counsels on both sides, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the High Court is not sustainable. In a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court has recorded findings on several disputed facts and allowed the petition. Defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciating the evidence dur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the ingredients necessary for prosecuting the respondents for the offences alleged. The question whether the appellant will be able to prove the allegations in a manner known to law would arise only at a later stage.................... The above judgments are squarely applicable to this case and as such, the points raised by the petitioner cannot be considered by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.6435 of 2004 on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. While pending this matter, this Court, by an order dated 25.01.2016, appointed an Auditor of one M/s. Brahmayya Co., in order to settle the issue. However, the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
