9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 932X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . During the pendency of the writ petition, matter was taken before the Apex Court in S.L.P. (Cri) No.4879/2008 and in that S.L.P. directions were given by the Apex Court for expeditious hearing of the writ petition itself. Under this premise, matter was taken up for final hearing. Heard rival arguments. 3. By the present writ petition, original accused Nos. 13 and 14 i.e. present petitioners have prayed for quashing the proceedings filed against them by original complainant / present respondent No.2. 4. Present respondent No.2 filed Criminal Case No.47/2007 (CC No.66/M/2007) before the Court of Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai. An order under Section 156(3) was passed by the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate's Court giving di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of accused No.13 present petitioner No.1. Local police at Rajkot did not take action and directed the complainant to file complaint at Mumbai where major part of illegal transaction took place. So also the crucial part of criminal offence took place in the jurisdiction of SEBI in Mumbai and in view of all the documents relating to the offence were lying at SEBI Mumbai. Considering the over all view as to the allegations in the complaint, the first objection on the point of jurisdiction does not survive and hence same is rejected. 7. So far as the second objection as to no specific averments against accused Nos. 13 and 14 (present petitioners), it is argued by learned senior counsel, Shri Shirish Gupte, for the petitioners that the complaint ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ingly and cautiously exercised and at that stage the High Court should not sift or appreciate the evidence and come to the conclusion that no prima facie case is made out. (iii) (2000) 8 Supreme Court Cases 115 Mahavir Prashad Gupta and another vs. State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and others 9. In this authority, the Apex Court had observed that the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution should be exercised with circumspection and only in rarest of the rare case such as where the complaint does not disclose any offence. 10. Considering the ratio propounded in the above three authorities, needless to mention that roving inquiry as to pros and cons of the merits of the case is not necessary and while exercising the jurisdict ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
