1996 (12) TMI 296

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....                                                                                                 Mahendra Singh for the Petitioner. P.K. Khaitan for the Respondent. JUDGMENT 1. This is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ('the C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... section 202 of the Code, against the petitioner and its managing director, Shri Parmindar Singh, summoning them as accused. The complaint was, however, dismissed under section 203 of the Code, as against the three others. Aggrieved by such order made by the learned Magistrate, the petitioner-company has filed this petition. 3. Mr. Mahendra Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner-company, argued the case, I must put it on record, with much industry and pains and at great length making reference to a number of provisions in the Act and several decisions of this and other Courts and also the Supreme Court. I wish I could have dealt with all such arguments but for the equally learned and painstaking arguments of Mr. P.R. Khaitan, the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... stage clearly disclosed that the respondent had purchased 200 shares of the petitioner-company from its shareholders, namely, Smt. Tripat Kaur, Smt. Lilawati and Shri B.A. Ramchandani and sent the same to the petitioner company for registra- tion of the transfer in her name but the petitioner company, for one reason or the other had failed to do the needful. Such evidence prima facie disclosed the commission of an offence punishable under section 113 by the petitioner-company. The fact, that the respondent had approached the District Consumer Forum and such forum had granted the desired relief to the respondent but the respondent did not disclose those relevant facts could possibly have a bearing upon respondent's case but not at the initi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 5. Now, coming to the point of jurisdiction of the Magistrate, I find that Mr. Mahendra Singh advanced two-fold arguments. In the first place, the learned counsel urged that since no part of the cause of action arose to the respondent within the jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate at Jaipur or in Rajasthan, he was not competent to take cognizance of an offence under section 113 on a complaint filed in Jaipur. In the second place it was submitted that the respondent was not a shareholder of the petitioner as the shares had not been registered as transferred in her name and, therefore, she could not have sued/prosecuted the petitioner-company. In my opinion, both the arguments are misconceived. The competency of an action taken in ....