IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
A.K. Pandya & Ors.
Vs.
State of Rajasthan and Anr.
Cr. Misc. Petition Nos. 3908 of 2012, 3833 of 2012, 3834 of 2012, 3846 of 2012
Decided on: 29th April, 2014
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – section 88 , 87 , 205 , 317 , 482 , 233 and 243 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 406 and 120 - NI Act - Section 138 - Harassment - Seeking exemption from personal appearance - A rights Issue was brought out in year by erstwhile Bank of comprised of 448,55,480 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each for cash at a premium of Rs. 5 per share with one detachable warrant carrying the right to be converted in one equity share within 12-18 months - In first phase of Issue 9248 applications were received from various share holders - M/s. HRB Floriculture Ltd. through its Managing Director and his family members were found eligible for allotment of shares - In second phase of allotment, i.e. Conversion of warrants into shares 5701 applications were received from various share holders including complainant who sought allotment in Demat Form - Court below referred said complainant to Police Station under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for investigation - Consequently a criminal case No. came to be registered at Police Station for offence under sections - Upon completion of investigation by the investigating agency it was found that no cognizable offence was made out and dispute between the parties was purely of civil nature and a final report was submitted to Judicial Magistrate - Accused petitioners thereafter entered appearance before court below through their counsel and submitted an application dated for grant of exemption from personal appearance - Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. and others filed a petition under against criminal proceedings so initiated against them and same was registered - Another misc. petition was also filed by persons who were nominated as directors of the erstwhile Bank of Rajasthan by Reserve Bank of India and same was registered as S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 801 and others vs. State of Rajasthan. It is further alleged in petition that vide order of this court dated petitions were admitted and this court was pleased to stay proceedings pending before court below - Held, Accused petitioners showing that most of accused petitioners have shown themselves to be resident - It was observed by court below that on account of distance from their residence outside accused petitioners are not in a position to reach the court and will feel uncomfortable - In relation to other grounds like old age persons and ailments trial court observed that the accused petitioners have not produced any documentary proof in support of their contentions in order to get exemption from personal appearance during course of trial - In these circumstances court below rejected application for personal exemption filed by the accused petitioners - Court have again and again gone through findings given by court below in the impugned order in light of the rulings quoted above of Apex Court and High Courts. In my view the order dated passed by court below does not call for any interference in inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 Cr.P.C. Court in fully agreement with the findings arrived at by court below - Accused petitioners will appear before trial court within a period of one month from the date of the order of this court - Non-bailable warrants issued by the trial court against accused petitioners are converted into bailable warrants - If accused petitioners do not appear before trial court within the time stipulated hereinabove the trial court shall be free to issue non-bailable warrants against accused petitioners – Order accordingly.
These four criminal misc. petitions have been filed by the accused petitioners against the order dated 5.11.2012 passed by Additional Metropolitan Magistrate (Junior Division) No.21 Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 113 of 2003 (under sections 406 and 120 B IPC) whereby the application dated 7.7.2003 filed by the accused petitioners (except accused No.4) seeking exemption from personal appearance under section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Code was rejected.
2. Since all the aforesaid criminal misc. petitions have been filed against the order dated 5.11.2012 passed by Additional Metropolitan Magistrate (Junior Division) No.21 Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur rejecting the application under section 205 of the accused petitioners, they are being disposed by this common order.
3. Facts as alleged in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3846 of 2012 are taken into consideration. A rights Issue was brought out in the year 1999 by the erstwhile Bank of Rajasthan comprised of 448,55,480 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each for cash at a premium of Rs. 5 per share with one detachable warrant carrying the right to be converted in one equity share within 12-18 months. In the first phase of the Issue 9248 applications were recevied from various share holders. M/s. HRB Floriculture Ltd. through its Managing Director Krishna Kumar Parwal and his family members were found eligibile for allotment of shares. In the second phase of allotment, i.e. Conversion of warrants into shares 5701 applications were received from various share holders including the complainant who sought allotment in Demat Form. The first phase of allotted shares were credited to the beneficiary account with the depository National Secutirty Depository Ltd. on 28.1.2000. The complainant filed application on 20.3.2001 for conversion of warrants into shares in D-Mat form and on grant of approval by the concerned Stock Exchanges for listing of shares the beneficiaty account of complainant was credited by the depository of his choice National Security Depository Ltd. on 8.11.2001. On 11.3.2002 the complainant sent a legal notice to the Bank and its Directors claiming compensation against losses said to have been suffered for the alleged delay in listing of shares. By the said notice, the Bank and its Directors were threatened with civil/ economic/ SEBI/ criminal cases unless a sum of Rs. 26,05,500/- were to be paid by the Bank to the complainant. The Bank politely reply to the said notice vide communication dated 14.3.2002. Eight months later, the complainant filed a complaint in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.8 Jaipur City Jaipur with the allegation that the shares were not issued and listed within a period of 42 days from the date of application and therefore the complainant was put to a great loss on account of fall in share price. The court below referred the said complainant to Police Station Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for investigation. Consequently a criminal case No. 322/2002 came to be registered at Police Station Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur on 7.12.2002 for offence under sections 420, 406 and 120 B IPC. Upon completion of investigation by the investigating agency it was found that no cognizable offence was made out and the dispute between the parties was purely of civil nature and a final report was submitted to the Judicial Magistrate No.21 Jaipur City, Jaipur. Upon receipt of final report, the court below passed an order directing issuance of notice to the complainant. On 24.1.2003 the complainant filed a protest petition before the court below and on 20.3.2003 the statement of Krishna Kumar Parwal was recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C. The court below vide order dated 2.5.2003 took cognizance of offence under sections 406 and 120 B IPC against the erstwhile Bank of Rajasthan and all its Directors/ office bearers and bailable warrants of arrest were issued against the accused petitioners. Upon service of the said baila
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.