CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS NO. 36055 OF 2006
WITH
CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS NO. 36267 OF 2006
WITH
CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS NO. 36524 OF 2006
*********
(In the matter of applications under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure )
*******
SIDHARATH @ SIDHARATH KUMAR JHA, SON OF SHRI ADITYA NATH JHA
(RANAJEE) ADVOCATE, NEAR CHITRAGUPTA SCHOOL KAISH TOLA, SAHARSA
AT PRESENT BRANCH HEAD OF KARVY STOCK BROKING LTD., DIMOND
SURBHI HOTEL KAPASIA, POLICE STATION TOWN, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI
.......................................... ....PETITIONER (IN CR. MISC. NO. 36055/06)
WITH
1. ABHINAV PRASAD @ ABHINA, SON OF LATE SHRI NEERANDRA PRASAD,
RESIDENT OF USHA SADA, 24, PREM NAGAR, POLICE STATION ASHOK
MARG, LUCKNOW (U.P.)
2. HIMANSHU JOSHI, SON OF SHRI SATISH CHANDRA JOSHI, RESIDENT OF
2/18, VIVEK KHAND, GOMATI NAGAR, POLICE STATION GOMTINAGAR,
LUCKNOW (U.P.)
3. NITIN SAXENA, SON OF LATE SHRI S.P. SAXENA, RESIDNET OF USHA
SADAN, 24, PREM NAGAR, POLICE STATION ASHOK MARG, LUCKNOW (U.P.)
4. NALINI TILAK, DAUGHTER OF PRITAM SINGH, RESIDENT OF H-372/5,
SECTOR-B, SHASTRINAGAR, POLICE STATION SHASTRINAGAR, MERUTH
(U.P.)
.............................................PETITIONERS (IN CR. MISC. NO. 36267/06)
WITH
SANTOSH KUMAR, SON OF LATE SRI MEWALAL, RESIDENT OF SARAYA,
POLICE STATION SADAR NAGAR, DISTRICT GORAKHPUR (U.P.)
............................................PETITIONER (IN CR. MISC. NO. 36524/06)
VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. DILIP KUMAR MISHRA, SON OF SHRI BISHNUDEO MISHRA, RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE HARAKH,POLICE STATION TOWN, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI
.................. ....................................OPPOSITE PARTIES (IN ALL CASES)
**********
FOR THE PETITIONER :- MR. CHITTRANJAN SINGH, SR. ADVOCATE
(IN ALL CASES) MR. AMISH JHA, ADVOCATE
FOR O.P. NO. 2 :- NO NE
FOR THE STATE :- MR. JHARKHAND UPADHYAY, A.P.P.
*******
PRESENT
2
HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN
ORDER
Sheema Ali Khan, J. Heard Counsel for the petitioners and the A.P.P.
appearing on behalf of the State. Nobody appears on behalf
of the Opposite Party No. 2 to pursue this matter.
2. The petitioner Sidharth @ Sidharth Kumar Jha is
the Branch Head of Karvy Stock Broking Ltd. at Begusarai
whereas petitioner Santosh Kumar is the Dealer of Karvy
Stock Broking Ltd. at Begusarai. The petitioners Abhinav
Prasad @ Abhinav is the Regional Manager, Himanshu
Joshi is the Divisional Manager, Nitin Saxena is the Vice
President, whereas Nalini Tilak is the Divisional Staff of
Karvy Stock Broking Ltd. The petitioners of Criminal Misc.
No. 36367 of 2006 are working and living in the State of
Uttar Pradesh and have no connection directly with the
affairs in the Begusarai Branch.
3. The allegations in the complaint petition are that
the complainant Dilip Kumar Mishra had deposited by
various cheques a sum of Rs. 1.6 lakhs for the purpose of
buying shares. It is the case of the complainant that he
had instructed the petitioner Santosh Kumar to trade in
shares. It is admitted on behalf of the complainant that he
did not have a trading account in his name till 10.01.2006
with the Karvy Stock Broking Ltd. He only had a Demat
3
Account. As such, the trading took place in the name of
one Annu Kumar. It is alleged that the company has
caused loss to the complainant and has also caused
mental harassment. This complaint case was filed on
05.04.2006.
4. The complainant had also filed Consumer Complaint
Case No. 21 of 2006 before the District Consumer Forum,
Begusarai on 01.04.2006. This fact has not been
mentioned in the complaint petition. During the pendency
of this case, the Consumer Court has disposed of the
complaint by dismissing it. While disposing of the case, the
facts as narrated in the complaint petition have been
mentioned. Besides which, the Consumer Court had the
opportunity to examine the accounts and the receipts
granted by Karvy Stock Broking Ltd. It has been recorded
by the Consumer Court that all the receipts were granted
in the name of Annu Kumar and that the trading license of
Annu Kumar was utilized for trading in the stock market
with the money that was deposited with the company i.e. a
sum of Rs. 1.6 lakhs. It has been noted by the Consumer
Court that Annu Kumar has not been made party in the
case filed before the District Consumer Forum. Only
Annu Kumar who can certify to the facts with respect to
the utilization of his trading license and the money by the
Company. It is admitted that the complainant did not have
4
trading license and, therefore, no stocks could have been
purchased and sold by the Company for the complainant.
5. Considering these facts and findings of the
Consumer Court, it is obvious that no offence would have
made out against the petitioners as the petitioners had not
utilized the trading account of the complainant/Opposite
Party No. 2 for the purpose of buying or selling stocks and
as such, there could not have been any loss incurred to
the complainant.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court find
that in fact the ingredients of Section 327, 406, 420 and
504/34 of the Indian Penal Code would not be attracted in
the facts of this case as the complainant did not have the
trading license for stocks with the Karvy Stock Broking
Ltd., where the petitioners are posted on various posts.
7. In the circumstances, I quash the order dated
20.05.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 551 C of 2006
pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
Begusarai.
8. In the result, these three applications are allowed.
( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )
PATNA HIGH COURT
DATED, THE 15th APRIL, 2011
N.A.F.R./ANAND
