Nisha Gupta, J. - (1.) This Misc. Petition under Section 482 has been filed against the order dated 25.8.2011 passed by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan in Cr. Case No. 532/2006 whereby charges have been framed against the present petitioner for the offence under Section 420 IPC.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City, Jaipur which was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the concerned Police Station and FIR No. 310/2002 was registered. The allegation in the FIR was that complainant purchased 23,100 shares which were sent through registered post on 15.7.97 for transfer in his account to the office of Raymonds Synthetics Ltd. Allahabad. The said company transferred 6600 shares in the name of respondent. Remaining 16500 shares were not transferred in his account and returned back. He time and again represented to the company but shares have not been transferred in his account with an intention to grab the amount. After conclusion of investigation, final report was filed. The Investigation Officer also investigated the matter from Karvy Consultants Ltd., (who is currenty the Registrar and Share Transfer Agents of erstwhile Raymond Synthetics Ltd.). On submission of negative final report, protest petition was moved by respondent No.2 and after recording his statement, cognizance has been taken against the preset petitioner for the above offence and revision was also dismissed, hence this petition.
(3.) The contention of the present petitioner is that no specific allegation has been lodged against present petitioner, initially FIR was lodged against Secretary, Raymond Synthetics Ltd., thereafter cognizance has been taken against authorised Secretary of MCS Ltd. whereas present petitioner is not the Secretary and nothing has been shown that he is an authorized person. Twice closure report has been filed in favour of present petitioner he has not committed any cheating with the respondent. The shares could not be transferred due to the fact that transfer deeds were time barred, hence the charges be quashed.;