IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.22130 of 2009 1. Udayan Mukherjee, son of Late Mr. G.C. Mukherjee, resident of A-101, Mon Repos, Band Stand, Bandra (West), Mumbai – 400050. 2. S.P. Tulsian, son of Late Shri Parmanand, resident of A-32, Mandhana Manor, Matunga (West), Mumbai – 400016 – petitioners. Vs. 1) The State of bihar, 2) Neeraj Kumar Singh, son of Sri Rajgrih Singh, resident of Satyendra Vihar Colony, Nar Bijli Office, Karma Road, Aurangabad – opp. parties. … For the petitioners : Mr. Anuj Prakash and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha No.1, Advocates. For the State : A.P.P. 6 15.3.2010 Although notices were issued to opposite party no.2 on 3.7.2009 and again on 23.11.2009, no one appears to oppose this application. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. This application has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 210/2008 including the order, dated 7.3.2008 passed by the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad by which cognizance for the offences under sections 406, 417, 420 and 463 of the Penal Code has been taken. The allegations in the complaint petition, in short, are that the complainant was waiting for lauch of I.P.O. (initial public offer) of Reliance Power. In order to subscribe to the shares, the complainant was watching various T.V. channels, such as CNBC 18 and reading news papers etc to get the expected value of the I.P.O. The petitioners who are economic analysts had appeared on CNBC 18 and predicted that the I.P.O. of Reliance Power was of Rs.200/- to Rs.300/- and would go up to Rs.400/- considering that it was a power 2 company and that it was owned by Reliance Industries. The complainant applied for 225 shares and was allotted 17 shares of the Reliance Power. The Ist date of submission of application for the I.P.O. was heavily over subscribed and the company received applications worth Rs.2300 crores within a minute of the opening of the share market. The complainant states that he expected that the value of the share would go up to Rs. 900-1100/- on the basis of the analysis given by various news channels which did not happen. On the basis fo the aforesaid fact the complainant instituted this case alleging that he has been misled into buying the shares and has been put to great loss. The purchase of shares is always a risk and any economic analyst who appears on any public media to give their opinions regarding the value of the shares always indicate that their advice is not sacrosanct and is subject to market risk and a disclaimer is also flashed. The news channels which report all these aspects of the matter take into account various factors. However, the market value of the share does not totally depend on their analysis, rather, it is just an opinion or guess based on various factors which is discussed in the columns and the TV news. The value of a share depend upon the conditions of the industry, commerce, value of the product which is to be produced and various other factors. Therefore, any opinion given by the experts on public media cannot be said to be given for the purpose of causing loss or profit to any individual. The act of buying or selling shares is an action which can be termed as risky in nature 3 and as such I do not see how the opinion of this nature can come within the purview of sections 406, 417, 420 and 463 of the Penal Code. To constitute an offence under section 406 of the Penal Code, there must be an inducement and dishonest intention. Likewise to constitute an offence under section 417 of the Penal Code to deceive is a must. On a plain reading of these sections this court does not find that any offence is made out under sections 406, 417 and 420 of the Penal Code. Having held that no offence is made out as aforesaid, this court also holds that no offence is made out under section 463 of the Penal Code which envisages that false documents or records are made by an electronic media with an intention to cause damage or injury to someone. Considering this aspect, the impugned order, dated 7.3.2008 passed by the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad in Complaint Case No. 210/2008 is quashed and this application is allowed. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)