DHIRUBHAI HIRACHAND AMBANI Vs. TULSI BHAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners (also referred to as accused hereinafter) call in question legality of order dated 5-1-1994 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar (in short, S.D.J.M.T) in I.C.C. Case No.4 of 1994 taking cognizance of offences punishable under sections 467 and 409 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, I.P.C.) and directing issue of process against petitioners to appear in person and answer charge in respect of the aforesaid offences. Prayer is for exercise of power under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, Code) to quash the entire proceeding which, according to petitioners, is misconceived. Case in question was instituted on basis of a complaint lodged by opposite party (hereinafter referred to as Tcomplainant). The factual antecedents in which the controversy arose are as follows: Complainants assertion is that he had purchased 350 equity shares of Reliance Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as companyT) through a broker functioning in Delhi Stock Exchange. He received concerned shares on 219-1992. He had obtained 50 equity shares earlier. He sent the aforesaid 400 share certificates along with transfer deeds duly executed in his favour by registered post with acknowledgement receipt under Postal Registration No. 4053 dated 24-9-1992 from Satyanagar Post Office, Bhubaneswar, to the company. He had not received the acknowledgement card from the addressee. Despite reminders to postal authorities, no reply was received. This necessitated sending of a latter on 5-3-1993 and reminder dated 5-5-1993 to the company to register the aforesaid shares in his name. However, accused persons by their letter dated 11-11- 1993, which was accompanied by zerox copies of transfer deeds, informed him that 400 shares in question have been registered in the name of Unit Trust of India (hereinafter referred to as U.T.I.T). From the zerox copy of transfer deeds it was revealed that share certificates were received by accused persons in their office between 24-9-1992 and 23-10-1992, and they actively connived with concerned subordinates in their office and destroyed the transfer deeds executed in favour of complainant and forged fresh transfer deeds and replaced the complainant's transfer deeds with forged ones, which ultimately resulted in registration of shares in favour of U.T.I. between 24-9-1992 and 23-10-1992. Complainant visited the office of accused persons in Bombay and ascertained that 400 share certificates were received in that office between 24-9-1992 and 23-10-1992. Accused persons by their letter dated 11-11-1993 admitted having received share certificates between 24-9-1992 and 23-10-1992. Complainant reliably learnt about similar large scale misutilisation Of share certificates, and Mr. Satish Parik and Mr. Vinod Ambany, two senior officers of company stated to him that it was petitioner No.1 who had full knowledge of the real truth. The two officers took no steps to trace out the registered letter sent by the complainant as they knew the truth. In the circumstances, complainant was led to believe that petitioner-accused persons committed forgery, criminal breach of trust and misappropriation in respect of said 400 share certificates in question.

(2.) Learned Magistrate recorded a statement of complainant, took cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 409 and 467, I.P.C. and directed issue of process as aforesaid.

(3.) According to petitioners, proceeding is thoroughly misconceived, as there was no infraction, and in any event petitioners had no role to play. Complainant has not proved any entrustment. On the contrary, there is no material to show that the documents were ever sent to petitioners. The address indicated in the complainant's own documents clearly shows that it was despatched to a non-existent department of the company. The share transfers are not handled by the company, and on the other hand, by Reliance Consultancy Services Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Consultancy Company'). The transfers were made in favour of U.T.I., a Government of India undertaking and there was no irregularity whatsoever involved. Allegations and accusations as made in the complaint petition and statement of complainant do not make out any offence at all, much less so far as petitioners are concerned. Complaint as the outcome of mala fides and to prevent further abuse of process of Court, exercise of power under Section 482 of Code is necessary. Complainant, on the other hand, contended that documentary materials clearly establish that shares and transfer documents were sent to the company and forged documents have been brought into existence to record transfers in favour of U.T.I. with oblique motive, and offences as alleged are clearly made out.