SANTKUMAR CHIRANJILAL JHUNJHUNWALA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is the first accused in Cr.No.124 of 2008 on the file of the first respondent, seeking to quash the F.I.R.

(2.) THE allegations in the F.I.R. are to the following effect:-a. Totally there are three accused in the case. A1 is the father of A2 and A3 is the wife of A2. THE defacto complainant had business transactions through one Sanjay Talati with A1 to A3. It is further alleged that at the behest of A1, when the defacto complainant contacted A2 and A3, they told that they would keep a constant watch on the stock market and place the shares at the right time and to the right person in order to fetch the best prices for the shares. THE defacto complainant, relying upon the representations of the accused, transferred three lakhs shares to the demat account of A2 with a specific instruction that the shares should be sold for a price between Rs.250/- and Rs.275/- It is further alleged that the defacto complainant transferred a sum of Rs.5.87 crores to the account of A2. THE grievance of the defacto complainant is that the the accused are said to have sold the shares without obtaining the consent from him on various dates at different prices in contravention of the express understanding reached between the defacto complainant and the accused and thereby, the accused caused loss to the tune of Rs.18.00 crores. It is pertinent to note that as far as A1 is concerned, he is said to have played a role of introducing A2 and A3 by stating that they are doing the business of shares very well and hence, the defacto complainant had the business of shares with A2 and A3. In the F.I.R. reference is made to various documents and records, namely, particulars of shares and cheques and other connected documents relating to the transaction between the defacto complainant and the accused. 2a. Heard both.

(3.) THE learned counsel further submitted that the defacto complainant has suppressed the fact of approaching the Economic Offences Wing, Crawford Market, Mumbai earlier on 22.12.2007 with an identical complaint and the said police had already started the investigation and hence, the F.I.R. registered by the first respondent is a clear abuse of process of law. THE learned counsel further submitted that there cannot be two parallel investigation into the same set of facts.