Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Patna High Court - Orders

M.D.,Karvy Computershare ... vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 30 June, 2011

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                 Cr.Misc. No.32605 of 2008
Managing Director, Karvy Computershare Private Limited, Address: Karvy House, 46, Avenue 4,
Stree No. 1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500034 through Shri Commandur Parthasarathy -
Managing Director, Son of Dr. C.R. Rajagopalan having address as above.
                                           Versus
    1. The State Of Bihar.
    2. Deepak Kumar, Son of Late Dhanusdhari Prasad, presently residing at C/o Om Prakash
       Keshri, Anand Bazar, Danapur Cantt, PO and PS Danapur Cantt, District Patna ----
       Opposite Parties.

For the petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Ambastha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P.
                                           -----------


2      30.6.2011

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

The petitioner is seeking quashing of the order of cognizance dated 2.5.2008 passed in Complaint Case No. 1068(C) of 2007 by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna. The present petitioner is the Managing Director of Karvy Computershare Private Limited. Apart from the Managing Director, Mukesh D. Ambani was also arrayed as an accused in this case. The case of Mukesh D. Ambani was heard by another Bench of this Court and was disposed of on 19.5.2011 vide Cr. Misc. No. 27464 of 2008. The prosecution case is that the complainant lost 100 shares of the Company where this petitioner was the Managing Director. A Sanha was lodged at Sindri Police Station. The complainant has been demanding and writing for issuance of duplicate shares which has not been done by the Company. This Court in its order dated 19.5.2011 has observed that "The complainant may have a valid grievance with regard to non-issuance of his duplicate shares but it certainly would not make out a cause for institution 2 of a criminal case."

Considering the finding of this Court that no offence whatsoever is made out against any of the accused persons much less under Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code, this Court quashes the order impugned.

This application is allowed.

Sanjay                                        ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)