IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.13114 of 2009 ASHOK KUMAR AGRAWAL, S/O PURASHOTTAM DAS AGRAWAL, RESIDENT OF MORCHA ROAD, BEGAMPUR, PATNA CITY, DISTRICT-PATNA. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. PAWAN KUMAR AGRAWAL, S/O SHRI NATHMAL AGRAWAL, RESIDENT OF GANGA BABU KI TEKHI, P.S. CHOWK, DISTRICT-PATNA. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Gopal Prasad Gupta, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, Advocate. For the Opp. Party : None 9. 27.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. This is an application for quashing the order taking cognizance in Complaint Case No. 1302(C) of 1997 for the offence under Sections 413, 120B, 420, 423, 415, 418 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation made in the complaint that the complainant had purchased 300 shares of Master Gain. from M/s Agrawal Investment and 200 Shares of Reliance Industries which was introduced in the stock market by Sri Purshattam Das Agrawal member of Magadh Stock Exchange, Patna. After purchasing the shares the complainant sold the share to other persons along with transferred deeds. But the purchased share when sent there for transfer were not affected by the respective companies on the pretext of bad delivery due to the difference in the seller signature. On the said complaint cognizance was taken which is impugned Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 2 in the entire complaint the main allegation of introducing the share in the Stock market is against the accused no. 1 Mr. Purushothem Das Agrawal in the complaint petition and it has further been contended that no role in the complaint petition itself being assigned specifically to the petitioner who is accused no. 2 in the complaint petition. It has further been contended that there is specific allegation against accused no. 1 in the complaint but accused no.1 has been discharged by this Hon’ble Court in Cr. Misc. no. 13849 of 2000 by order dated 9.10.2001. It has been held that though the shares were purchased from Agrawal Investment but the Agrawal Investment has not been made party in criminal case but only two members of the Magadh Stock Exchange has been proceeded with on allegation under Sections 420, 423 of the Indian Penal Code. because they have introduced the share however held that inducement regarding the purchase can in no way drag the accused no. 1 of the complaint because he remains only the inducer of Magadh Stock Exchange and further held that no criminal liability against the petitioner in that case who is accused no. 1 in complaint lies in the whole process and thereby allowed the petition under Section 482 challenging the order refusing to discharge of accused no.1 Purushuttam Das Agrawal and further held that the criminal charge against 3 the petitioner (Purushuttam Das Agrawal) does not lie and the whole proceeding against the petitioner (Purushuttam Das Agrawal) would be nothing to the abuse of the process of the Court by order dated 9.10.2001 in Cr. Misc. No. 13849 of 2000. Hence it is contended that when the accused no. 1 Purushuttam Das Agrawal has been discharged from the criminal proceeding holding that no criminal offence is made out the case of petitioner is on similar footing and hence continuing of the proceeding against the co-accused Ashok Kumar is nothing but abuse of the process of the court require to be set aside. Hence having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case since proceeding against main accused who introduced the share has been discharged then continuing prosecution against the petitioner is nothing and abuse of the process of the court and hence application is hereby quashed and petition stands allowed. Amit ( Gopal Prasad, J.)