TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1878
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 2 folios consisting of 100 shares of Reliance Industry. 1st folio was in the name of the Complainant and Accused No. 2 and 2nd folio was in the joint names of Accused No. 2 and complainant. The address in these shares is House No. KC-102/2, Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad. Thereafter Reliance company sent to complainant 100 shares in the year 1997 and 200 shares of their company in this year itself. 4. THAT all the Accused in furtherance of their conspiracy beat the Complainant and threw him out of the house along with his children in the year 1998 for mala fide reasons. They also forged signatures of complainant in the years 1997 and 2006 and illegally procured bonus shares and when complainant demanded back his original shares and bonus shares from them, they misbehaved with the complainant and refused to disclose anything to him. The complainant is presently living in Chiranjiv Vihar with his children for the sake of lives of himself and his children and also to maintain peace in the family. 5. THAT Folio number of the shares is 068119227 and complainant is not aware of the number of 2nd folio and he will provide it later on whenever he comes to know of it. Because all....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Folio No. 68119227 and Certificate No. 0049595 on the basis of above application of applicant Suresh Kumar Goyal on 15.4.1993. 8. THAT thereafter above said 100 debentures were converted by M/s. Reliance Polythene Limited into shares and accordingly issued 100 shares bearing Share Nos. 154702201 to 154702300 in the names of Arun Kumar Goyal (i.e. the complainant) and Devinder Kumar Goyal vide Master Folio No. 68119227 and Certificate No. 00545523. It is pertinent to mention here that conversion of debentures into 100 shares vide Master Folio No. 68119227 was done by the above said company in pursuance of their own policy and no application for this conversion was ever given by the applicant. 9. THAT later on M/s. Reliance Polythene Limited merged with M/s. Reliance Industries Limited and thereafter 25 shares of this company in lieu of above said 100 shares were allotted by the company according to their policy bearing Share Nos. 400314745 to 400314769 in the names of Arun Kumar Goyal (i.e. complainant) and Devinder Kumar Goyal vide Folio No. 68119227 and Certificate No. 056387476. It is pertinent to mention here that this conversion of shares into 25 shares was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ificate No. (Illegible), share Nos. 23978999076 to 2397899087 = 12 Shares. 13. THAT thereafter M/s. Reliance Industries Limited under its Company policy issued 50 bonus shares in the joint names of Arun Kumar Goyal (i.e. complainant) and Devinder Kumar Goyal vide Folio No. 608119227, Certificate No. 622733328, Share Nos. 002226357219 to 00222357268 dated 28.11.2009. 14. THAT in this manner it would be apparent from the above facts that 100 shares of Reliance Industries Co.; 2 shares of Reliance Capital Limited; 3 shares of Reliance Energy Limited; and 12 shares of Reliance Power Limited have been issued in the joint names of Arun Kumar Goyal (i.e. complainant) and Devinder Kumar Goyal. These shares were sent by the company at House No. KC-102/2, Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad i.e. the address maintained in their records. The originals of all the above shares are available with Devinder Kumar Goyal. In this manner, it would be apparent from the above that neither the applicants nor the complainant have purchased these shares from the open market. All the shares have been allotted by the company in lieu of the money paid by Suresh Kumar Goyal (i.e. father of Arun Kumar Goyal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lect money of his half share in the above shares after selling them in the open market. But he is not ready for this offer. He is not entitled to demand all the shares. 6. The application for discharge was rejected by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Ghaziabad vide his order dated 14.06.2011. While so rejecting, it was observed that sufficient grounds to frame charges Under Sections 420, 323 and 504 Indian Penal Code were made out. 7. The aforesaid order was challenged by the Appellants by filing application Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure namely Application No. 22324 of 2011. The High Court noted the contentions on behalf of the Appellants as under: As applicant No. 1 was not happy with the conduct of the opposite party No. 2, he disowned him and also filed O.S. No. 406 of 2007 in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad for a decree of declaration. A criminal complaint was also initiated by applicant No. 1 against the opposite party No. 2 Under Sections 420, 406, 409, 321, 323, 385, 442 Indian Penal Code. ... ... ... On 2.12.2009, the opposite party No. 2 filed a Complaint Case No. 3884 of 2009 again....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt No. 2 reiterated the submission that the issue of ownership was essentially a question of fact which had to be decided in the pending complaint and that the matter ought not to be entertained in an application for discharge. In support of the submission that Respondent No. 2 had acquired those shares from his own funds, reliance was placed upon a typewritten extract showing debit entries of Rs. 1250/-, Rs. 1250/- and Rs. 500/- dated 04.05.1993, 08.06.1994 and 15.10.1994 which extract was however without any details. 10. This Court adjourned the matter to enable the parties to arrive at an amicable settlement whereafter the Appellants agreed to withdraw all the cases filed by them against Respondent No. 2 on the condition that similar such cases filed by Respondent No. 2 against them also be withdrawn, giving quietus to all the proceedings between the parties. Respondent No. 2, however, did not agree to the proposal. 11. The thrust of the allegations in the complaint is that the shares in question were acquired from the funds of the complainant, though they have always stood in the names of the complainant and his brother. It is also accepted that the shares have always bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... There is an endless list of judgments rendered by this Court declaring the legal position that in a case where the prosecution/complainant has levelled allegations bringing out all ingredients of the charge(s) levelled, and have placed material before the Court, prima facie evidencing the truthfulness of the allegations levelled, trial must be held. 29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an Accused at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far-reaching consequences inasmuch as it would negate the prosecution's/complainant's case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....prosecution/complainant? 30.4. Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? 30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the Accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the Accused. 13. In the present case the shares in question, right since the date of acquisition have always been in the custody of Appellant No. 1. The material on record is absolutely clear that the acquisition was from the funds of Appellant No. 1. The complainant has merely alleged that the funds came from his bank account but beyond such allegations no material has been placed on record at any stage. The stand taken by the Appellants in their application Under Section 245(2) Code of Criminal ....