ASHOK KRIPLANI Vs. SHIVA TEXYARN LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. assailing order dated 04.04.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi whereby the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to the present case is that the petitioner filed a complaint for the offence under Section 34/107/193/409/420/120B IPC against M/s. Shiva Texyarn and nine other persons/accused persons. The case of the petitioner is that in April/May 1995, the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.6 lakhs from the branch office of proposed accused No.1/Shiva Texyarn Ltd. (formerly Annamalai Finance Ltd.) for a period of one year and on 04.04.1995, the petitioner executed an agreement and three partially blank promissory notes of Rs.2 lakhs each. The said loan was executed by pledge of shares of more than Rs.8 lakhs and subsequently on demand collateral security of property of office flat was given. In the year 2002, proposed accused No.1 filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs.13 lakhs and in the said suit it was pleaded that proposed accused No.1 had some remaining pledged shares of the complainant. Later on, in November 2006, proposed accused No.1 disclosed that he had sold the said shares in the year 2003 for less than Rs. 1 lakh. It is alleged by the petitioner that the sale of pledged shares was intimated to him by the accused company to his company by telegram in April 2006. It is also alleged that proposed accused has misappropriated the shares of the petitioner. It is further alleged that the proposed accused Nos.1 to 6, abetted by proposed accused Nos.7 to 9 have not been able to provide the full details of documents regarding sale of said shares. It is also alleged by the petitioner that proposed accused Nos.7 to 9 as per the Advocates' Act are not acting as the officer of the Court but are supporting the misdeeds of proposed accused No.1 through proposed accused Nos.3 to 6. The proposed accused Nos.7 to 9 have knowledge of false evidence, allegation and illegalities of the proposed accused Nos. 1 to 3 in various Courts.

(3.) IN support of his case, the petitioner examined as many as six witnesses in pre -summoning evidence. After recording pre - summoning evidence, the complaint was dismissed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Central, Delhi vide order dated 16.12.2013.