1 WP : 3514/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3514 OF 2010 Pervin Bankim Mehta .... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents Mr. M.G. Shukla, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.R. Bhosale, APP for State Ms. Reshma Mishra i/by Ashok Shahanai, for respondent no.2. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 9th February, 2011 P.C. 1. This petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India and under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure seeks quashing of complaint bearing Case No. 649/P/2003 pending in the Court of Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai filed by respondent no.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 read with 34 Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is original accused no.2. The husband of the petitioner is original accused no.1. As per the complaint, both are directors of Benham Securities Private Limited. The complaint alleges that pursuant to certain representations made by the petitioner and her husband in November 1999, the complainant agreed to purchase substantial number of shares of companies 2 WP : 3514/2010 selected and suggested by them to be resold in the market at the appropriate time. The amounts involved for purchase of those shares was more than Rs.50.00 lacs. The complainant arranged for the funds and invested the same in shares in his own, in the name of his wife, his daughter-in-law and two of his companies. The complainant for the purpose had arranged for loan from Oriental Bank of Commerce, Nariman Point, Mumbai. He had made the payments to the petitioner and her husband as and when the intimation of purchase of shares was given by them. The complaint alleges that after receiving a sum of Rs.55.00 lacs, during the period December 1999 to March 2000, the petitioner and her husband had represented that the shares had been bought through Mangalore Stock Exchange and the contract notes except for one furnished to them showing that all the purchase transactions have been done through Mangalore Stock Exchange. Later, it was revealed that there was no actual purchase of shares by the petitioner and her husband. Since respondent no.2 did not receive the shares as represented by the petitioner and her husband, despite having made payment of Rs.55.00 lacs he filed the present complaint. 2. The petitioner had earlier filed application for discharge before the trial Court, which was rejected. The order of rejection came to be challenged by invoking criminal revision jurisdiction to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court dismissed the revision application of the petitioner by its order dated 5th March 2009. In both the orders, the courts below have held that the charge-sheet as filed discloses the offence alleged against the petitioner. The charge- sheet shows the 3 WP : 3514/2010 petitioner and her husband as accused and the list of various companies of which shares were shown to be purchased as stated in the letter dated 3rd February 2000, written by husband of petitioner. There is also another letter dated 4th April 2000 written by the husband of petitioner. It is contended that as per complaint itself, the entire transaction of purchase of shares was with the husband of the petitioner and she had no role to play therein. There can be no merit in this claim, in view of the specific allegations made in the complaint that the representation for purchase of shares was made by both the petitioner, as well as, her husband. In the circumstance, the petition fails. The same is dismissed. (Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J)