- (1.) This is an application for quashing of a proceeding being Case No. C-418/97 now pending in the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court, Calcutta under sections 420/471/120 B of the Indian Penal Code. The present petitioners were made accused in the aforesaid case which was initiated on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Anil Kumar Agarwal. The complainant/opposite party No.1 in the present application. The allegations made in the complaint are that the complainant purchased 200 equity shares from the petitioner No.l Company. The present opposite party/complainant received the aforesaid shares at Calcutta and sent the same with duly filled in stamped transfer deeds to the petitioner No. 1/ company for getting the same transferred in his name. It was alleged that the accused petitioner No.1 duly received the said shares and transferred the same in the name of the complainant and allotted the folio No. being 65664 and as such the complainant became the recorded owner and/or share holder of the said 200 equity shares of the accused No. 1/ company. It was alleged that the complainant thereafter did not receive back the original shares from the accused company. Who failed to return those shares after transferring in the name of the complainant? After a reasonable time the complainant made enquiries and came to learn from the company in its letter dated 2.2.96 that the aforesaid shares had already been lodged by one Monoj Kr. Jain and Sunil Bafna of Chennai for transferring those shares in their names. It was alleged in the petition of complaint that the accused petitioners were responsible for returning the aforesaid shares after being transferred in his name, but as they failed to do the same they have committed breach of trust. It was alleged further that Monoj Kr. Jain and Sunil Bafna had lodged the aforesaid shares with the petitioner No. 1/ company for getting the same transferred in their name with a forged transfer deed to commit fraud.
(2.) On receipt of the aforesaid complaint cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was transferred to the court of Id. Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court, Calcutta who examined the complainant and his witnesses and by his order dated 20.8.97 issued process against the petitioners under sections 420, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
(3.) Mr. Milon Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegations made in the petition of complaint do not make out any offence tinder sections 420/471/120-B of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioners. Mr. Mukherjee submits that it would be evident from records that the offence. if any committed, was committed by other persons and the present petitioners [tad no role in commission of such offence. On the contrary the petitioners took all precautionary measures to protect the interest of the share holder, i.e., the complainant. Mr. Mukherjee submits that after purchasing the shares in question from market the complainant/O.P. No. 1 had lodged the same with the company of the petitioners for transfer of the said share scripts in the name of the complainant. Mr. Mukherjee submits that after purchasing the shares in question from market the complainant/O.P. No. 1 had lodged the same with the company of the petitioners for transfer of the said shares scripts in the name of the complainant. The petitioners' company thereafter transferred the said shares in the name of the complainant and sent back the same to the complainant by registered post with acknowledgment due. But unfortunately the complainant did not receive such letter. Mr. Mukherjee draws the attention of the court to a document annexed to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners. The said document is the xerox copy of the extract from the journal of uninsured registered letters posted by the petitioners' company. Mr. Mukherjee pointing out the said document submits that the registered letter containing the share scripts was sent to the complainant. But unfortunately the same was not received by the complainant, for which the petitioners cannot be held responsible, Mr. Mukherjee further submits that the complainant instructed the petitioners' company for not transferring the said share scripts in the name of any other person and pursuant to such instruction the company did not transfer the share scripts and informed the complainant to take appropriate steps in the regard and also for obtaining an appropriate order of injuction from the court. Mr. Mukherjee submits that if any offence is at all committed, it was committed by the accused Nos. 7 and 8 named in the petition of complaint, not by the present petitioners. As such the instant proceeding, so far it relates to the present petitioners, should be quashed.;