IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.8867 of 2008 Anil Kumar Saraogi Versus The State Of Bihar & Anr ---------------------------------- 6 25-10-2011 This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 31.10.2006 passed by Sri A.K.Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 2882(C)/2006 whereby he took cognizance under sections 406 and 420 IPC against petitioner. Heard counsel for the parties. As per allegation, petitioner is said shareholder of 200 shares of Jaiprakash Industries Ltd., having share certificate no. 16691 bearing Registered Folio no. 34967, having Distinctive no. 48894008 to 48804107 for 100 shares and Certificate No. 48862, Registered Folio no. 34967 having Distinctive no. 52111108 to 52111207 for 100 shares. Petitioner sold his shares in share market and complainant purchased the said shares through his share broker Ramesh & Company and after payment of full consideration money, got the delivery of all the shares vide Bill No. RC77 dated 9.3.1995. After amalgamation of Jaiprakash Industries Limited 2 with Jaipee Cement limited, new name came in existence as Jai Prakash Associates Limited. Shares were forwarded for effecting transfer in name of complainant opposite party no.2 and was intimated that shares already were dispatched to petitioner (original transferor). Thereafter several correspondences (requests) were made to Company as well as petitioner but without response. Then legal notice was sent to Jai Prakash Industries and petitioner at his Kolkata address. It is specifically alleged that the price of complainant’s share is misappropriated by petitioner. Submission is that shares were purchased by complainant- opposite party no.2 in the year 1995 and initiative was taken only in the year 2005 for effecting transfer in his name. Petitioner is denying his identity at Kolkata address with further submission that this Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance. There is no limitation for effecting transfer of shares which is opened to be purchased anywhere at any time if are sold. Share is not purchased at Ahmedabad or Kolkata and every correspondence is made from Patna. 3 So, this is well within the jurisdiction of the Court at Patna. Petitioner has been identified by his both addresses that of Ahmedabad and Kolkata that also does not justify to doubt the prosecution case. I find no infirmity in the order dated 31.10.2006 taking cognizance against the petitioner by the court below. This application is accordingly, dismissed. AI ( Mandhata Singh, J.)