AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 780
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....certificates were misplaced and the said fact was intimated to the petitioners vide letter dated 26-08-2016, requesting issuance of duplicate share certificates. No reply being received by the opposite party, another letter was issued on 19-09-2016 to which the petitioners sent a reply vide letter dated 07-10-2016 stating there was no share holding in the name of the opposite party as on that date. The balance sheet of the petitioner company as on 31-03-2015 reflected that the opposite party was holding 27,000 shares in the company though the name of the opposite party was wrongly typed therein. The opposite party alleged that the petitioners dishonestly misappropriated the amount of share certificates for their own use for making wrongful gain. 3. Learned counsel has further submitted that on or about 20-06-2016 the shares were transferred by the opposite party in favour of the petitioner nos. 2 to 4 following negotiations between the parties which is depicted in the annual returns for the period 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 obtained from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. The opposite party received a sum of Rs. 2, 70,000/- by way of pay order of HDFC bank towards such transfer. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r (transferor and transferee) was executed. There are disputed questions of fact involved in the case which should be determined by way of trial. The learned trial court, after recording initial evidence under section 200 of the Code, was satisfied about prima facie case having been made out and issued summons upon the accused/petitioner. Therefore quashing of the proceedings at such initial stage is not warranted. Learned counsel has referred the authorities in Arpita Mukherjee nee Chatterjee v/s. Deva Prosad Ganguly reported in (2016) 1 CAL LT 102 (HC), Rumi Dhar v/s. State of West Bengal reported in (2009) 2 SCC (Cri)1074 and Helios and Matheson Information Technology Limited v/s. Rajeev Sawhney reported in (2012) 1 SCC 699 in support of his contention and has prayed for dismissal of the application. 6. At the outset it should be pointed out that though allegation in the complaint was under section 420/406/120B of the Penal Code, cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, of offence under section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which has no bearing with the complaint. However, after the case was transferred to the learned Metropolitan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....In 2016 it was detected by the complainant company that the said share certificates were not found/misplaced for which the complainant company requested the accused company to issue duplicate certificates in its favour vide letters dated 26-08-2016, 19-09-2016 and 29-09-2016, to which the accused company replied that there was no share holding in the name of the complainant company in its office record. Further notice was sent to the accused company by the complainant company through its learned advocate demanding issuance of duplicate share certificates which was not heeded to by the accused, following which the complaint was lodged. 12. Referring to the copy of " notes to the financial statements for the year ended 31st March, 2015" of the accused company, learned advocate appearing for the complainant/opposite party has submitted that the name of the complainant company appears as shareholder in respect of 27,000 equity shares of the accused company in this document. Such fact is not disputed by the petitioners who submit that the shares were transferred in their favour by the opposite party subsequently, sometime in 2016. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Goyal and Madhavrao Jivajirao Scindia (supra). 17. In the case in hand, the allegations made against the accused petitioners are bereft of any intention of cheating or misappropriation at the inception of the transaction. The equity shares were admittedly issued against consideration and loss or misplacement of such shares by the opposite party is a subsequent event which was not contemplated by the parties at the time of issuance of the shares. No prima facie case of initial deception has been made out and under no stretch of imagination can it be held that the petitioners acted with criminal intent at the inception on an anticipation that the shares would be misplaced at a subsequent stage. No prima facie case of entrustment with or dominion over property or dishonest misappropriation of property or even ingredient of cheating has found place within the four corners of the complaint. Even if it is held that duplicate share certificates were deliberately not issued in favour of the opposite party with criminal intent, such act was done at a subsequent stage only after the original share certificates were misplaced and no such intent is found at the inception of the transaction. &....