MARIAM MATHEWS Vs. PIYUSH SINGHANIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is preferred assailing the order dated 21.11.2008 of the Ld. MM summoning the petitioners for offences under section 406/409/420/467/471/472/120-B IPC and for quashing the complaint case CC No. 2283/1 titled "Piyush Singhania v. DBS Cholamandalam Distribution Services Ltd. & Ors.

(2.) M/s DBS Cholamandalam Distribution Services Ltd. is a company dealing in stock broking, portfolio management, mutual funds, bonds, FDs etc. The petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 are its Vice President and Executive Chairman. A complaint was filed under section 190 Cr.P.C. by respondent Piyush Singhania against the company and also the petitioners and one Vikas Jain, the then Regional Head of the company. The allegations as set out in the complaint were that petitioner no.1 and Vikas Jain approached the complainant (respondent herein) and represented themselves to be at senior positions and employees of the company. They represented about the credentials of the company and assured the complainant that if he would invest his money through them, the same would be invested in different mutual funds yielding him good returns. Based on the representations and assurances, the complainant agreed to invest his money. He was made to sign certain documents and hand over some cheques on the assurance that the money would be used for investment purposes. It was alleged that on 25.10.2008, the complainant received phone from his bank that approximately Rs.60 lac has been invested from his three different accounts i.e. from his personal savings, HuF and his company in different mutual funds and stock shares through cheques and ECS Forms. He contacted the accused company telephonically as also vide letter dated 29.10.2008. It is also alleged that after receiving the copies of CCS Forms, redemption forms and other forms from the bank through which the money was withdrawn, he noticed that his signatures were forged to facilitate the withdrawals by the accused persons.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it was on the assurance of the company and the petitioners that he made investments and that the investments were made by committing forgery of his signatures and without his consent. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon M. Viswanathan v S.K. Tiles and Potteries P. Ltd. and others [(2006) 12 SCC 390]; Manoj Narian Agrawal v Shashi Agrawal and others [[(2009) 6 SCC 385); and Dhanalakshmi v R. Prasanna Kumar and others [1990 (Supp.) SCC 686].