Back
2023 Supreme(Mad) 577
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
A.S. Sreevikram & Another - Appellantss
Versus
The Union Territory of Puducheery Rep. by Inspector of Police, Puducherry & Another - Respondents
Criminal Original Petition Nos. 30509 & 30511 of 2019 Crl. M.P. Nos. 16533 & 16534 of 2019
Decided On : 29-03-2023
For the Petitioners:Sathish Parasaran, Senior counsel, M/s. K.M.D. Muhilan, Advocate. For the Respondent: R1, M.V. Ramachandramurthi, Additional Public Prosecutor, R2, No appearance.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a preliminary enquiry before entertaining complaints, and the court's authority to quash an FIR if it is found to be an abuse of process of law.
Headnote:
Abuse of Process of Law - Criminal Proceedings - Indian Penal Code, Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 r/w 34 - Quashing of FIR
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash the FIR registered for alleged offences under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations stemmed from a complaint regarding misappropriation of money and unauthorized transactions by a company called Great Ventures.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned FIR was an abuse of process of law and that no offences were made out against the petitioners. It noted that the quasi-judicial order passed by the accused was being projected as a criminal act without sufficient basis.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged misappropriation of money, unauthorized transactions, and the decision of the Investor Grievance Redressal Committee. The court also considered the malafide nature of the impugned FIR and the potential hardship and ignominy caused by its pendency.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that even if the allegations were accepted as true, no offences were made out against the petitioners. It emphasized the need for a preliminary enquiry before entertaining complaints of this nature and concluded that the impugned FIR was not only malafide but also a clear abuse of process of law.
Final Decision: The impugned FIR as regards the petitioners was quashed, and the Criminal Original petitions were allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer : Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to call for the records and quash the FIR registered in Crime No.14/2019 dated 17.10.2019 as against the petitioner, pending investigation on the file of the first respodnent Police.)
Common Order:
1. These Original Petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.14 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019 for the alleged offences under Sections 409, 420, 468 and 471 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The petitioners are arrayed as A3 and A4 in the impugned FIR. The third Accused (petitioner in Crl OP No.30509 of 2019) is working as Senior Executive in the Investor Service Centre (ISC) of M/s.Multi Commodity Exchange of India Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as ‘MCX’) at Chennai. The fourth Accused (petitioner in Crl OP No.30511 of 2019) is the President of Investor Grievances Redressal Committee (hereinafter referred to as “IGRC” )
3. It is alleged in the FIR that the Defacto Complainant had invested substantial money in a concern called Great Ventures; that Great Ventures were involved in the business of commodity Trading; that Great Ventures had misappropriated his money and had done transactions without his consent and; that some transactions have been traded in platforms other than MCX. Thus, according to the Defacto Complainant, he had lost huge money because of the acts of the said Company Great Ventures and approached the Authorities/ Officials of MCX, Chennai; that the third accused, who was the Senior Executive had arranged for referring the matter to the Investor Grievance Redressal Committee which was presided over by the 4th accused; that the 3rd and 4th accused had not applied their mind and without hearing the Defacto Complainant had rejected the complaint of the Defacto Complainant; that thereafter the Defacto Complainant approached SEBI and the SEBI Authorities had also rejected his complaint. Aggrieved by the same, he had lodged the impugned FIR against Great Ventures, its Managing Director and the petitioners herein.
4. (i) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that it is true that the second respondent enrolled himself as the client of Great Ventures, who was a trading member of MCX. He would further submit that MCX is akin to a stock exchange; that the only difference is that the Members of MCX trade in commodities, whereas in a stock exchange they trade shares; that Great Ventures is a trading member similar to a stock broker in equities market; that the second respondent is the client of Great Ventures and; that the Great Ventures had traded on behalf of the second respondent on the MCX platform between 02.02.2016 and 26.04.2016.
(ii) He would further submit that the Defacto Complainant aggrieved by the fact that Great Ventures had executed certain trades without his consent and have not made payment in spite of his request, had complained to the MCX Authorities; that the 3rd accused who was working as Senior Executive in the Investor Service Centre guided the second respondent to the Investor Grievance Redressal Committee (IGRC) which was presided over by the 4th accused; that the 4th accused had independently gone into the complaint and the documents furnished on either side and passed a quasi judicial order dated 13.06.2016; that the 4th accused found that the complaint filed by the second respondent has no basis and dismissed the complaint; that if he is aggrieved by the orders passed by the 4th accused, he could initiate Arbitration in accordance with the circular issued by SEBI. Thus, he submitted that the petitioners have been unnecessarily arrayed as accused. The second respondent has to establish his case in the manner known to law. A criminal action is sought to be initiated for passing a quasi judicial order which was not in the favour of the second respondent. Thus, he submitted that the impugned FIR as against the petitioners is an abuse of process of law an
