D KANAKAVALLI Vs. R SHANKARANARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner herein has lodged a private complaint against the respondents herein before the Trial Court for the alleged offence punishable under section 406, 420 and 465 which was taken on file, later, the first respondent herein has filed an application under sec.245(2) Cr.P.C. for discharge of both the respondents which was allowed by the Trial Court, hence, the present criminal revision case.

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has handed over share certificates to the respondents on an understanding that he can make use of them for the purpose of availing loan from third parties; that in no circumstance, the share certificates were permitted to be sold; that the petitioner herein did not sign in any of the share certificates or letter of authorisation or power of attorney at any point of time; that the learned Magistrate ought to have held that the respondents herein had prepared the transfer forms by forging the signature of the petitioner and the attestor thereby misappropriated the sale proceeds of the shares; that the learned Magistrate ought to have dismissed the application for discharge on the ground that the allegation of forgery can be decided during the trial, but, erroneously allowed the order passed by the learned Magistrate is a non-speaking order.

(3.) Learned counsel Mr.Sudanthiram appearing for the second respondent submitted that the petitioner herself has admitted in the complaint that she had handed over the share certificates to the first respondent in order to discharge the loan of the second respondent; that the petitioner has also executed an affidavit enabling for sale of the share certificates; that the said affidavit is a self-explanatory to show that the transfer/sale of shares were effected with her consent; that even prior to the transfer of shares, the concerned company has issued notice to the petitioner, but, she has not protested to the same and as she was aware of the said transfer, the transfer of shares was a genuine one and that the complaint was a later thought. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no prima facie case made out against the respondents, hence, the learned Magistrate, in exercise of sec.245(2) Cr.P.C. has rightly allowed the petition for discharge. The learned counsel for the second respondent has relied on the following decisions:- (i) ASHOK CHATURVEDI v. SHITUL H.CHANCHAN (1998 CRI.L.J. 4091) wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has held in paragraphs 5 and 6 that