(Criminal Revision Case u/s 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. aggrieved by the Order Dated 03-08-2012 in CRLMP No.2250 of 2011 in CC No.614 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad).

The order dated 03-8-2012 in Crl.M.P.No.2250 of 2011 in C.C.No.614 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, is assailed through the present revision. The petitioner, who is accused No.1, laid the petition under Sections 227, 239, 245 and 258 Cr.P.C for his discharge in C.C.No.614 of 2004. Through a detailed order, the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, dismissed Crl.M.P.No.2250 of 2011.

2. A private complaint was lodged by one Shyam Sunder Bung before the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, alleging that 3 accused committed offences under Sections 468, 471, 476, 477A, 419 and 420 IPC. Accused No.1, who is the petitioner herein, is the authorized representative of M/s. Mantri Finstock Limited (Accused No.2), Hyderabad Branch. He looks after the affairs of accused No.2. It is the case of the de facto complainant that accused No.1 is involved in the day to day transaction on behalf of accused No.2. Accused No.2 is a Member of Mumbai Stock Exchange. Accused No.3 is the Managing Director of accused No.2.

3. The de facto complainant is a dealer in stocks and shares. It is his case that he purchased 5,000 shares of M/s. Goldstone Engineering Limited, through accused No.2 in July, 1996. The shares were handed over to the de facto complainant in August, 1996. The total value of the shares purchased by the de facto complainant is Rs.80,000/-. It is alleged that accused No.1 personally sold the shares to the de facto complainant through accused No.2. The de facto complainant sold 1,200 equity shares in September, 1996 and January, 1997 through accused No.2. He retained the balance of 3,800 equity shares with him.

4. It is the case of the de facto complainant that accused No.1, after selling the shares through accused No.2 to him, obtained duplicate share certificates from M/s. Goldstone Engineering Limited. The accused 1 to 3 allegedly conspired thereafter and sold duplicate shares in open market to third parties forging the signature of the de facto complainant and thus deceived him causing loss of lakhs of rupees to him.

5. The very complaint is surprising. From the averments, it appears that the de facto complainant did not suffer from any loss. It is the innocent third parties who allegedly suffered in the hands of the accused. When the accused obtained duplicate share certificates, no loss could be caused to the de facto complainant. When they sold the same by forging the signature of the de facto complainant, it is the innocent purchasers who would ultimately suffer. Perhaps, the de facto complainant has no cause of action and no locus standi to file the present complaint.

6. Be that as it is, the case was taken on file and was numbered as C.C.614 of 2004. Accused No.3 subsequently filed the petition before the trial court in Crl.M.P.No.6452 of 2010 seeking for his discharge. The petition was dismissed by the trial court on 31-12-2010. By then, C.C.No.614 of 2004 came up before the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. When the discharge petition was dismissed, the petitioner moved Crl.R.C.No.116 of 2011. Through a detailed and exhaustive order, this Court found that it is not a fit case for the discharge of accused No.3 and consequently dismissed the revision. Accused No.1 in his turn filed a petition before the trial court for his discharge through Crl.M.P.No.6453 of 2010. The same was dismissed by the trial court through order dated 31-12-2010 on which date, Crl.M.P.No.6452 of 2010 filed by accused No.3 was dismissed. Accused No.1 preferred Crl.R.C.No.117 of 2011 before this Court. Through orders dated 25-3-2011, this Court dismissed the revision following the decision of this Court in Crl.R.C.No.116 of