The petitioner in the subject petition calls in question

registration of crime in Crime No.84 of 2021 registered for offences

punishable under Sections 107, 424, 427, 34, 418, 421, 403, 406,

409, 411, 413, 414, 420, 468, 120, 120A, 378, 405, 410, 415, 425,

463, 464 and 117 of the IPC and pending before the IV Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as

borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-

3

M/s Karvy Stock Broking Limited (hereinafter referred to as

‘the Company’ for short) is a Company involved in the business of

share broking, financial advisory and other allied services. The

petitioner is presently the Director of the Company. A complaint

comes to be registered against the Company on 8-09-2021 by one

M/s B.K.G. Mining Private Limited and its officers alleging that the

Company through its officers has misutilized the Power of Attorney

granted to it on the investments made which has resulted in huge

losses to the investor/complainant for the wrong doing of the

Company. The complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.84 of 2021

for several offences noted supra. Registration of FIR leads the

petitioner/Company to this Court in the subject petition.

3. Heard Sri C.V.Nagesh, learned senior counsel appearing for

the petitioner, Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri Kiran S.Javali, learned senior

counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

4. The learned senior counsel representing the petitioner

taking this Court through the documents appended to the petition,

would contend that it is purely a matter of contract between the

4

parties and there is no element of criminal breach of trust or

cheating or any of the offices so alleged. The crime is registered in

a reckless manner. Definitions of offences are made as offences and

since there is no application of mind in registering the crime, this

Court should interfere and terminate such proceedings which are

recklessly instituted against the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel representing

the 2^nd respondent/complainant would vehemently refute the

submissions to contend that investors like the complainant invested

their investments with the petitioner, who is the Director of the

Company to deal with the funds in a proper manner in accordance

with law and not to invest in places where it is convenient for the

petitioner and then show up losses to them. The Securities and

Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’ for short) has clearly indicated as

to what are the activities done by the petitioner and has further

indicated how the petitioner has misutilized the Power of Attorney

executed by the investors like the complainant.

6. In reply to the said submission, the learned senior counsel

for the petitioner would contend that SEBI, being a statutory body

5

having enquired into the allegations made against the petitioner has

in fact taken penal action of cancellation of licence under the

provisions of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992

(‘SEBI Act’ for short). Therefore both the proceedings under the

SEBI Act and for offences under the IPC are not maintainable. Apart

from this, he would submit that there is gross delay of 6 years in

registering the crime as investments have been made in the year

2015.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

made by the respective learned senior counsel and perused the

material on record.

8. Since the matter is at the stage of FIR, there are no facts

that have emerged after the investigation that are before the Court

for consideration. The afore-quoted facts, though limited, are not in

dispute. What needs to be considered on the complaint and the

proceedings before the SEBI is:

‘Whether registration of crime was in accordance with law and

further proceedings are to be permitted or not?’

6

9. The complaint so registered narrates that the accused

approached the complainant to