Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3.3. It is alleged that since the accused failed to make payment of the margin money even after margin call, in time his shares were squared off in accordance with the Margin Trading Agreement. It is alleged that after squaring off the transactions, the accused petitioner had a debit balance of ₹98,73,005/- in his account as on 10.11.2008.

Pursuant to the same, a legal notice was sent to the petitioner for repayment of the due amount, however, no reply was received for the same.

8. He submitted that the aforesaid facts clearly indicate that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature and the complainant company is giving a criminal color to the same to arm twist the petitioner.

9. He submitted that the petitioner's shares were sold on the very next day after purchase of shares on 21.01.2008 without making any margin calls, in ignorance of the period of settlement of 8-10 days to pay margin money. He submitted that no record of any margin calls was produced before the learned Trial Court, despite which, summons were issued against the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner had deposited security margin money of ₹75 lakhs and further deposited margin monies exceeding ₹3 crores.

22. In the present case, it is alleged that the petitioner dishonestly induced the complainant company into opening an account in his name and advancing margin money to him with the mala fide intention to cheat the complainant company. It is alleged that the petitioner made false promises and representations while executing the member client agreement, even though he knew that the same would not be honoured by him. It is alleged that the petitioner refused to pay the due amount despite multiple margin calls.

29. It is argued on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the ingredients for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC are not made out in the present case and the dispute is essentially civil in nature. This Court finds merit in the said argument. The fulcrum of the dispute is essentially in relation to payment of margin money wherein the petitioner is alleging that his shares had been illegally sold by the complainant company. While this Court does not deem it appropriate to venture into the credibility of the said assertions, it is relevant to note that the alleged sale was admittedly made close to ten months before the issuance of the legal notice. It is not elaborated as to why the complainant company did not issue the legal notice for the dues in the intervening time. Moreover, even though the entire case of the complainant rests on the allegation that the petitioner deliberately evaded payment despite due notice by way of margin calls, no particulars have been pleaded in the complaint nor stated by the complainant witnesses as to when the alleged margin calls were made in relation to the dues.