IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.8867 of 2008
Anil Kumar Saraogi
Versus
The State Of Bihar & Anr
----------------------------------
6 25-10-2011 This application has been filed for
quashing the order dated 31.10.2006 passed by
Sri A.K.Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
Patna in Complaint Case No. 2882(C)/2006
whereby he took cognizance under sections 406
and 420 IPC against petitioner.
Heard counsel for the parties.
As per allegation, petitioner is said
shareholder of 200 shares of Jaiprakash
Industries Ltd., having share certificate no.
16691 bearing Registered Folio no. 34967,
having Distinctive no. 48894008 to 48804107 for
100 shares and Certificate No. 48862,
Registered Folio no. 34967 having Distinctive
no. 52111108 to 52111207 for 100 shares.
Petitioner sold his shares in share
market and complainant purchased the said
shares through his share broker Ramesh &
Company and after payment of full consideration
money, got the delivery of all the shares vide
Bill No. RC77 dated 9.3.1995. After
amalgamation of Jaiprakash Industries Limited
2
with Jaipee Cement limited, new name came in
existence as Jai Prakash Associates Limited.
Shares were forwarded for effecting transfer in
name of complainant opposite party no.2 and was
intimated that shares already were dispatched
to petitioner (original transferor).
Thereafter several correspondences
(requests) were made to Company as well as
petitioner but without response. Then legal
notice was sent to Jai Prakash Industries and
petitioner at his Kolkata address. It is
specifically alleged that the price of
complainant’s share is misappropriated by
petitioner. Submission is that shares were
purchased by complainant- opposite party no.2
in the year 1995 and initiative was taken only
in the year 2005 for effecting transfer in his
name. Petitioner is denying his identity at
Kolkata address with further submission that
this Court has no jurisdiction to take
cognizance.
There is no limitation for effecting
transfer of shares which is opened to be
purchased anywhere at any time if are sold.
Share is not purchased at Ahmedabad or Kolkata
and every correspondence is made from Patna.
3
So, this is well within the jurisdiction of the
Court at Patna.
Petitioner has been identified by his
both addresses that of Ahmedabad and Kolkata
that also does not justify to doubt the
prosecution case.
I find no infirmity in the order dated
31.10.2006 taking cognizance against the
petitioner by the court below. This application
is accordingly, dismissed.
AI ( Mandhata Singh, J.)