Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State.
This application has been filed for quashing of the order 22.07.2010 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in connection with Bistupur P.S Case No. 185 of 2009 (G.R No. 1500 of 2009) whereby and whereunder, cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner.
Before adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, the case of the prosecution needs to be taken notice of:-
The informant Paras Nath Prasad (opposite party no. 2) lodged the case on the allegations that he was having Demat account with ICICI Bank through whom he was dealing with the matter relating to sale and purchase of the shares. When he came across with one Manish Kumar, Branch Manager of India Infoline Limited, he expressed his desire that certain shares be transferred through India Infoline Limited instead of ICICI Bank. Upon which Manish Kumar informed that it is not possible for the India Infoline Limited to transfer the shares unless shares are transferred from ICICI Bank to India Infoline Limited. When the informant expressed his desire to get it transferred to India Infoline Limited, Manish Kumar introduced one Rakesh Ranjan Singh to him who was holding the post of Relationship Manager of India Infoline Limited and said that he will be doing needful in the matter. At the same time, it was told by Manish Kumar that for the purpose of getting the shares transferred from ICICI Bank to India Infoline Limited, he is required to put his signatures on the transfer slips and rest of the details would be filled up by Rakesh Ranjan Singh. Accordingly, the informant having put his and his wife's signature over the transfer slips gave it to Manish Kumar, who in turn, gave it to Rakesh Ranjan Singh for doing needful for transferring the shares in the manner given below.
1. From S.B.I demat account to India Infoline Limited demat A/c no. 1204470003929083 holder Paras Nath Prasad and Sandhya Prasad
2. From ICICI demat account no. 41576889 to India Infoline Limited demat A/c no. 1204470004091451 holder Sandhya Prasad and Paras Nath Prasad.
Further case is that so far transfer of the shares from SBI demat account to India Infoline Limited demat account is concerned, that was done, but with respect to transfer of shares from demat account of ICICI Bank to demat account of India Infoline Limited is concerned, Rakesh Ranjan Singh fraudulently got the shares worth Rs. 25 lacs transferred in his account no. 1201092600197814 which he was having with Motilal Oswal Securities Limited. When the informant came to know about the mischief being done by Rakesh Ranjan Singh, he tried to contact him frantically but always failed. He even could not be contacted on cell phone. Thereupon, he made complaint in this regard to the Branch Manager, ICICI Bank and even to the Branch Manager of India Infoline Limited. On 29.5.2009, Manish Kumar, Branch Manager and Sanjay Singh, Territorial Manager of India Infoline Limited came to the residence of the informant to discuss and negotiate with him about the fraud committed by Rakesh Ranjan Singh. Both of them said that the address given by Rakesh Ranjan Singh in the employees' record was incorrect but, in fact, he came to know that the address given in the employees' record was quite correct and that Manish Kumar and Sanjay Singh of India Infoline Limited did not make any effort to restore all the scrips to ICICI demat account.
Mr. K.P Deo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the cognizance of the offences has been taken against the petitioner under Sections 419, 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, upon the charge sheet being submitted but from the perusal of the document, which has been the part of the first information report as contained in Annexure-6, it would appear that whatever grievances the informant had, it was against Rakesh Ranjan Singh, who according to the statement made in th said Anexure-6, did commit offence of forgery and misappropriation. There has not been any whisper with respect to role being played by this petitioner, who at the relevant point of time, was posted as Branch Manager at India Infoline Limited.
It was further submitted that though charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner putting the allegation that this petitioner, in connivance with Rakesh Ranjan Singh, has committed offence of forgery and cheating, but it was the petitioner, who had given information with respect to misdeed committed by Rakesh Ranjan Singh before Bistupur Police Station.
It is true that the document, which has been referred to on behalf of the petitioner speaks about the accusation against co-accused-Rakesh Ranjan Singh, but the police after taking into account the circumstances gathered during investigation, submitted charge sheet against the petitioner and, therefore, at this stage, it would not be proper to give any finding with respect to guilt or innocence of the petitioner.
However, keeping in view the allegation made against the petitioner, I do not find it a fit case for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 22.07.2010
Accordingly, this application stands dismissed.
Notwithstanding the fact that this application got dismissed, the petitioner would be at liberty to take all the points, which have been taken in this application, at an appropriate stage.
Comments