ANIL AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed under Sec. 482 of he Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order taking cognizance dated 2.11.2004 passed by Shri S.K. Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 2366(C) of 2004 thereby and thereunder the cognizance has been taken under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471/120B against five persons including these petitioners.

(2.) The petitioners are the Managing Director, Directors and Vice-Chairman of Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd., Vedanta, Bombay which produces and deals in copper rods having mines and processing units at different countries including India. According to the prosecution story the complainant-Opposite Party No. 2 was authorised Broker of Magadh Stock Exchange having office at Budha Marg, Patna and deals in sales and purchase of shares of different companies. On 2.11.1999 he purchased one hundred shares of petitioners' Industry worth Rs. 29,600.00 from one Ashutosh Kumar Gupta, accused no.1. Ashutosh Kumar Gupta after receipt of money through cheque signed on relevant papers for transfer of all shares in the name of the complainant. The complainant kept documents on his table but the same was lost for which he gave information to Kotwali Police on 4.10.2000.

(3.) It is submitted by Mrs. Priyadarshini Y. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners, that absolutely there is no ingredient of cheating or misappropriation in the allegations made in the complaint petition against the petitioners. The petitioners have no concern with the purchase and sale of shares of the company nor any share of the company was directly purchased by the complainant from any of the petitioners. The company of the petitioners refused to transfer the shares in question in the name of the complainant as it was found forged and fabricated. It is further submitted that the prosecution of the petitioners is out and out abuse of process of the court. The complainant has actually filed this case with oblique and ulterior motive only in order to take undue advantage from the petitioners, and not to secure their conviction. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 opposed the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners.