1. The present petition is filed challenging the order dated 28.09.2013 (hereafter ‘impugned order’), passed by the learned Trial Court, in CC No. 99/0109, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Court has summoned the petitioner for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’).

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

3.1. A complaint was filed by the complainant company/ Respondent No.2 (earlier known as M/s. Indiabulls Securities Ltd.) under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) against the petitioner for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC. It

is the case of the complainant company that it is engaged in the business of stock broking and it provides stock trading services to its clients and thus acts as a transaction facilitator between its clients and the Bombay Stock Exchange and the National Stock Exchange. It is alleged that the petitioner was one of the clients of the complainant company and the petitioner had entered into a Member Client Agreement dated 03.01.2007 with the complainant company. The petitioner had been informed of the risks associated with shares and securities through the ‘Risk Disclosure Document’ as well.

3.2. Thereafter, it is alleged that the accused petitioner started placing orders with the complainant company for buying and selling of shares and securities. One of the services being availed by the petitioner under the Member Client Agreement was of margin trading facility, wherein the complainant company was to make part payment of the transaction value due to the Stock Exchange at the time of purchase of shares or securities.

3.3. It is alleged that since the accused failed to make payment of the margin money even after margin call, in time his shares were squared off in accordance with the Margin Trading Agreement. It is alleged that after squaring off the transactions, the accused petitioner had a debit balance of ₹98,73,005/- in his account as on 10.11.2008. Pursuant to the same, a legal notice was sent to the petitioner for repayment of the due amount, however, no reply was received for the same.

3.4. It is alleged that the petitioner had dishonestly and fraudulently

induced the complainant company to open an account in his name in the books of the complainant company and availed the margin facility with a dishonest intention of cheating the complainant company. It is alleged that the petitioner induced the complainant company into advancing the margin money to him by making false reassurances and promises of repaying the due amount, which he allegedly knew will not be honoured by him. It is alleged that the accused petitioner had dishonest intentions from the very beginning to deceive and cheat the complainant company and the petitioner had refused to pay the due amount causing wrongful loss to the complainant company.

3.5. Two complainant witnesses were examined before the learned Trial Court. CW1 (Manager of the complainant company) reiterated the allegations made in the complaint and produced the statement of account. CW2 (Senior Law Officer of the complainant company) also reiterated the allegations and deposed that the petitioner was in debit balance and did not pay the due amount despite issuance of legal notice.

3.6. In the impugned order, the learned Trial Court found that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner accused and issued summons against him for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC.

3.7. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations made in the complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not make out even a prima facie case

against the petitioner. He submitted that the allegations made in the complaint are absurd and inherently improbable and no prudent person can eve