MOHD IQBAL Vs. SEBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 ("CrPC") seeks quashing of Criminal Complaint No. 343/2002 (renumbered as CC No. 66/5) pending before the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Special Acts), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and all proceedings emanating therefrom, including the order dtd. 23/4/2002 whereby the present petitioner was summoned for the offences under Ss. 24(1) and 27 of the Securities Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 ("SEBI Act") and the order dtd. 7/10/2005 whereby non-bailable warrants were issued qua the petitioner and other accused persons.

(2.) A complaint bearing number 343/2002 (renumbered as CC No. 66/5) under Sec. 200 of CrPC read with Sec. 24(1) and Sec. 27 of SEBI Act, was filed against the company, Aim Plantation Ltd along with its directors, including the petitioner herein. As per the said complaint, it had been alleged by SEBI (the complainant therein) that the aforesaid company was running a Collective Investment Scheme (C.I.S.) and had raised an aggregate amount of Rs.0.532 crores from the general public, but had not applied to the former for registration of the collective investment schemes allegedly being operated by it. It is further alleged that the aforesaid company never initiated any steps for winding up of the schemes and for repayment to the investors despite notices. In view of the above allegations, SEBI, by way of the aforesaid mentioned complaint alleged that the company along with its directors violated Ss. 11B, 12(1B) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 read with Regulations 5(1), 68(1), 68 (2), 73 and 74 of C.I.S. Regulations 1999.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner restricted his submissions only to the extent that the alleged complaint made no specific averments qua the present petitioner. In support of the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of the court to the decision in Rashima Verma v. SEBI, (2009) 157 DLT 417, and stated that in the said case, a similar complaint, in almost identical circumstances had been quashed by a Learned Single Judge of this High Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to para 24, 26 & 27 of the aforesaid judgment which stated as below:-