ANUP AGRAWAL @ ANUP KEWELKA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 15/04.12.2012 Initially this application was filed for quashing of the F.I.R. of Sakchi P.S. Case No. 103 of 2012 (G.R. No. 1421 of 2012), instituted under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, against the petitioners. Subsequently, through an interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 1265 of 2012, charge-sheet, submitted in the case, and also the order dated 3.8.2012, under which cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code was taken, have been sought to be quashed. Before adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the case, as has been made out in the F.I.R., needs to be taken notice of.

(2.) It is the case of the informant that the informant used to have have trading of shares with M/s Ashika Stock Broking Limited, to which these petitioners are the Directors, who always showed loss in every transaction of the share. At the same time, they do not use to give share notes to the informant. Further allegation is that the petitioners dishonestly got 19000 shares of Satyam Computer transferred in their own Accounts. Similarly, 750 shares of Tata Steel were deposited in their Accounts after getting it transferred dishonestly from the DEMAT Account of the informant. Those shares were worth Rs.30,00,000.00. That apart, the informant on misrepresentation made by the petitioners issued five cheques each of Rs.10,00,000.00 in total of Rs. 50,00,000.00 which the petitioners got it deposited in their Accounts. The said amount was never returned by the petitioners to the informant though the informant had asked the petitioners repeatedly to return the same. At one point of time, they had promised to return a sum of Rs. 80,00,000.00 which they were owing to the informant but they did not do so.

(3.) On such allegation, a case was registered as Sakchi P.S. Case No. 103 of 2012 under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners have taken franchisee of M/s Ashika Stock Broking Limited, a registered broker with stock exchange regulated by SEBI, and have been running business in the name of M/s Kewalka Securities Private Limited, as sub-broker, and, therefore, the petitioners being Directors of M/s Kewalka Securities Private Limited had to do business through the broker and as such it is wrong on the part of the informant to say that the petitioners are the Directors of M/s Ashika Stock Broking Limited. Since the petitioners were not the brokers, they had had no occasion to handle the DEMAT Account of the informant.