ALKA SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order seeks to dispose of the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashment of FIR and subsequent proceedings.

(2.) The facts as narrated in the petition succinctly are that on 4.3.2020, a team of police officers from Crime Branch, Indore raided the office of Money Secure Investor Investment Adviser on complaint filed by a broker also involved in investment consultancy. They seized documents, equiptment etc placed in the Office. Subsequently, an FIR was registered against the petitioner who is the proprietor of the company along with two other persons under Sections 406, 418, 419, 420, 109 and 120B of IPC and Section 6(1) of M.P. Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan, 2000 (hereinafter referred as 'the PID Act').

(3.) As per the petitioner, the Company is registered in SEBI and has complied with all the SEBI regulations and is also registered with Local Municipal Corporation and Labour Department. The petitioner submits that the FIR mentions the name of one Anoopam Gupta (respondent No.2) who had filed a complaint against the Company. Anoopam Gupta, is a broker and not a client nor investor or employee and no way connected to the company and his complaint is without any basis and based on hearsay. The Investigating Officer has taken cognizance of such complaint without verifying the same. There is a specific procedure laid down under Section 11 of SEBI Act, 1992, for carrying out investigation in respect of companies, which are registered in SEBI because these companies managed investment of large number of clients at any given point of time and any disturbance in regulations of such companies can result in huge loss of the clients. Hence, specific procedure for carrying out investigation has been laid down. The companies following all the SEBI guidelines makes sufficient disclaimers and disclosures well in advance. The company merely provides advice to its client and execution of such advice is completely at the discretion of the client. It is further stated that there is no complainant in the case who had accused this company of cheating him and therefore, provisions under Section 420 of IPC are not applicable. Since the company does not take deposit from its customers and only offers advice, no ingredients of Section 406 of IPC are present to implicate the company under this provision. For the same reason that the company does not take deposits from customers, provisions of PID Act are not applicable. Further, there is a violation of provision of Section 6 of the PID Act, which requires express permission of the officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police having jurisdiction before initiating the investigation in the matter. The petitioner in his petition, further submits that no reason has been assigned by the complainant as to why he did not approach the Vijay Nagar police station, as the company operates within the jurisdiction of Vijay Nagar police station. Lastly, it has been mentioned that the petitioner is a mother of infant breast feeding child and was on maternity leave at the time when said raid took place and therefore, she was not present in the office and join the investigation. On these grounds the FIR has been sought to be quashed.