ORDER

-2- The applicants have filed this Revision under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashment oforder dated 19.10.2023 whereby charges under Section 420/406 of theIPC & Section 6(1) of M.P. Nikshepkon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam have been framed against the applicants.

02. Facts of the case are that one Sourabh Gupta S/o SatishSarmandal resident of House No.110, Scheme No.136, Anand Vihar,Indore submitted a written compliant on 05.03.2022 to Additional Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Indore alleging that the present applicants are illegally running an advisory company without SEBI License and Gumasta License since last 5 – 6 month. He has also made a complaint against three other advisory companies. The said complaint was marked to Police Station - Khajrana, Indore and the Station HouseOfficer registered an F.I.R. against the present applicants and five othersunder Sections 420, 406 & 120-B of the IPC on 05.03.2020.

03. The police recorded the memorandum statement of the presentapplicants under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act on 07.03.2020, according to which they were working as partner in Swastic InvestmentAdvisory Company. They opened the Demate Account. The police seized attendance register of 13 employees, registration certification under the Shop & Establishment Act, memorandum of association and lease agreement.

04. Except the aforesaid memorandum and seized articles, there is absolutely no investigation in this matter as to who has been cheated by the present applicants in the name of investment or sell or purchase of shares. Even the complainant has not made allegation that he has been -3- cheated by the present applicants by way of advice for sell and purchase of the shares. On the basis of only this limited material andmemorandum statement, the police filed a final report on 05.03.2020 in the court of magistrate. Surprisingly, the learned Sessions Judge has framed the charges under Sections 420, 406 of the IPC & Section 6(1) ofM.P. Nikshepkon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam.

05. In order to prove the charges against the applicants / accused person there is absolutely no material in the charge-sheet. Not a single investor came forward to make an allegation about cheating which is a mandatory requirement for prosecution under Section 420 of the IPC. So far as charge under Section 406 is concerned, same is also very vague in nature and to establish or prove the charges, there is no material available in the charge-sheet.

06. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in a similar facts and circumstances in the case of Alka Shrivastava v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh (M.Cr.C. No.23883 of 2020) quashed the F.I.R. and subsequentproceedings vide order dated 22.09.2020. Paragraphs - 31, 32, 33 & 34 are reproduced below:- “31. Such proposition by the learned Public Prosecutor for State is like putting cart before the horse. The police in the present case has registered FIR not on the basis of complaint of a victim and now seeks to find whether there are any victims or not, which is absolutely against the ethos of investigative processes. 32. We have seen that the provisions of IPC and PID Act are not attracted prima faice in this case, that there is an statutory bar against taking cognizance by Court for any such offence, which is in the domain of SEBI Act, 1992, which requires complaint to be filed by SEBI Board. This case is squarely relates to breach of provisions of SEBI Act, 1992 and SEBI Regulations, 2013 and only Special Court is empowered to take cognizance on the basis of complaint filed by SEBI Board. The police was not authorized -4- to register an FIR in such case because there is a specific statutory bar in such matters. 33. What the police could have done was that bring to the notice of SEBI Board the alleged violation being committed by the applicant Company. After providing vital information and inputs to