Manish Gupta vs State of Uttaranchal and another

Hon''ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.—Petitioner Manish Gupta has come up, by means of this petition, seeking to quash the proceedings of complaint case no. 392/2006, titled as Ashok Sharma Vs. Karvi Stock Broking Ltd. & others, and summoning order dated 29.9.2006 as well, passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal. Learned Magistrate, after recording the statement of complainant Ashok Sharma u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and that of his witness H.P. Bahuguna u/s 202 Cr.P.C., has summoned only two accused persons, namely, Devendra Sharma and Manish Gupta, asking them to stand trial for the offences punishable u/s 420/120-B IPC. With regard to other accused, learned Magistrate was of the view that no such offence, prima facie, has been made out.

The background facts, qua controversy, are that petitioner is manager of a company, known as Karvy Stock Broking Ltd., having its branch office at Haridwar and Head office at Hyderabad. Sri Devendra Sharma was the dealer posted in that branch office. This company deals with purchase and sale of shares of different companies at the instruction of the shareholders, and for the purpose, a shareholder is required to open a Demat account in the concerned surrounding branch. Here, in the instant case, the branch was situated at Haridwar, wherein Devendra Sharma and petitioner Manish Gupta were posted, as afore-mentioned. Ashok Sharma, a project engineer, working in Jaiprakash Associates at Tehri, opened his Demat account at Haridwar.

In the course of operation of that account, Sri Ashok Sharma asked Devendra Sharma on 9.3.2006 to sell 200 shares of "Reliance Natural" which existed with the complainant Ashok Sharma.

For selling the shares, it is incumbent upon a shareholder to sign a Delivery Instruction Slip (hereinafter will be called as ''Slip'') from the cheque book, issued on behalf of Karvy Stock & Broking Ltd., by the concerned branch office to the shareholder. In order to sell these 200 shares, Devendra Sharma approached the complainant at Tehri and asked him to issue the Slip from the chequebook, as desired by complainant. Usually, when this Slip is issued by the accountholder to the dealer, in that case, he is required to issue the same after filling its all columns and putting his signature beneath. But instead of doing so, complainant issued the said Slip, keeping the columns blank and putting his signature beneath. This was done on account of personal relations and faith of complainant with Devendra Sharma.

Thereafter, Devendra Sharma came at Haridwar along with the said Slip and misused the same, by withdrawing the shares from the account of complainant and crediting the same in his own account, thereby caused loss to the tune of Rs. 3.50 lakhs to the complainant.

Having come to know the details of his account, complainant came to Haridwar and made a complaint on 1.8.2006 with the branch office, being officiated by petitioner Manish Gupta, who assured him for some administrative action against Devendra Sharma. But when no action was taken, the impugned complaint was filed by complainant Ashok Sharma against all the office bearers of the company, including the branch manager Manish Gupta (petitioner) and dealer Devendra Sharma.

It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that no sooner did the petitioner came to know about this alleged fact of cheating by his dealer Devendra Sharma with the complainant, he lodged an FIR on 5.8.2006, copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure RA1 to the rejoinder affidavit, wherein it is stated that Devendra Sharma is not attending the office since 17.7.2006 despite of sending notices to him by the Regional Office and that he has absconded. The irregularities and the act of cheating, committed by Devendra Sharma, has also been reported to the police in the said FIR.

Per contra, the argument has been put forth, on behalf of complainant Ashok Sharma, that since the petitioner was the Officer In-charge of the Branch Office, as such, he was equally responsible for the alleged act of Devendra Sharma.

This Court is not impressed with the argument advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the complainant Ashok Sharma, and feels that the alleged act of cheating was done by Devendra Sharma at the place of Ashok Sharma at Tehri. Even, the complainant too is liable for his negligence and blind faith upon Devendra Sharma for issuing him a signed blank Slip from the chequebook, so issued to him by the branch office of the company. Prima facie, petitioner cannot be held responsible for this alleged act of cheating. Fortiori, when the petitioner came to know about this alleged cheating from the complaint of Ashok Sharma, he himself lodged the FIR, soon after the occurrence, at the instructions of head office.

So, this Court feels that the petition is acceptable. Petition of Manish Gupta is, accordingly, allowed and the complaint, as well as the order of cognizance, so far as it relates to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. The court below will be at liberty to proceed with the trial ahead against Devendra Sharma. Inform the court below accordingly.