BHANWARLAL BOTHRA Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER (complainant before the trial court) has filed this writ petition praying therein that the order dated 4th April, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in revision petition No. 74/2007 as well as the order dated 12th January, 2004 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in criminal complaint case No. 950/2000 be set aside. It has been further prayed that trial court be directed to make further enquiry into the commission of offence by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (accused) and decide the complaint in accordance with law.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna against the respondents under Sections 403, 406, 420, 467, 471, 504, 323 read with Sections 120B and 34 of Indian Penal Code. Promod Bothra, proprietor of M/s Bothra Brothers, is son of Bhanwarlal Bothra. Firm M/s Bothra Brothers are share brokers. Complaint was filed through Shri Bhanwarlal Bothra. It was alleged in the complaint that sometime in the month of September, 1991 respondent Nos. 2 to 4 came in the office of M/s Bothra Brothers and showed their willingness to sell some of the shares owned by them and their relatives. They also handed over share certificates together with duly signed transfer deeds to the firm. This sale transaction was done by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 till January -February, 1992. Shares were sent to respective companies for recording the transfer. However, some of the shares were received back as bad delivery on the ground that signatures of the transferor differed. When this fact was brought to the notice of respondent No. 1, he obtained a power of attorney in his name, duly executed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Thereafter, fresh transfer deeds were signed by him. Shares were again sent to the companies for registering the transfer. However, again so many shares were received back unregistered on the ground that power of attorney was not duly registered with the said companies. Besides this, respondent Nos. 2 to 4, who were Non Resident Indians, had also not obtained permission from Reserve Bank of India resulting in non registration of so many shares in the name of transferee(s). It was alleged that the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 had put their wrong signatures on the transfer deeds. Despite the fact that so many shares were received back as bad delivery, respondents realized the value of all the shares from the petitioner by filing complaint in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi. It was further alleged that on 6th June, 2000 respondent No. 2 came to Ashiana Plaza, Patna to settle the matter but instead of settling the matter he picked up fight with the complainant and abused him.

(3.) RESPONDENT Nos. 2 to 4 preferred a transfer petition in the Supreme Court which was allowed and the complaint case was transferred to the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. Respondents filed an application under Section 245 Cr.P.C. in the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi seeking their discharge. During the pendency of said application respondents also preferred a writ petition in this Court being Crl. M. (M) No. 3509/2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 18th July, 2003. It was ordered that grievance of the respondent can be remedied by directing the trial court to dispose of the application, for recalling the summoning order, within two months. High Court passed this order in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala reported in : 1992 (1) SCC 217.