CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.11082 OF 2004 ********** In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ********** DEEPAK SINGHANIA, S/O LATE L.L. SINGHANIA, MANAGING DIRECTOR, LML LTD., C-3, PANKI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, KANPUR, 208022 --------------------------(Appellant) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SHASHI KANT UPADHYAY, S/O SHRI PREM CHAND UPADHYAY, R/O CIVIL LINES, BUXAR, TOWN & DISTRICT- BUXAR. -----------------------(Respondents) ************ For the Petitioner : MR. S.D. SANJAY For OPPT. PARTY-2 : B.J.OJHA ADVOCATE P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ********* Anjana Prakash, J. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 16.3.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Buxar in complaint case no. 626 (C) /98 Trial No. 520/2003, by which the Magistrate has taken cognizance for offences under Sections 420 and 468 of I.P.C., in as much as it concerns the petitioner. 2. On 14.10.2004 notices were issued to the opposite party no. 2 and further proceedings were stayed and thereafter on 1.2.2005 the matter was admitted. The counsels for both the parties are present in court today and make their rival submissions. 2 3. As per the complaint by the opposite party no. 2 had purchased 100 shares of LML on 9.10.1995 through the stock broker and sent it to the company for transfer in his name, which he received in due course. However, when he sent the shares to Kolkatta for settlement the shares were returned to him showing it to be bad delivery since there was cutting on the back of the shares. The complainant alleged that it appeared that the accused persons in conspiracy with each other had sold the shares to some one before endorsing it to him and made profit upon it and caused loss to him since they knew that if there was cutting it would be bad delivery. 4. The petitioner is the Managing Director of LML ltd. Kanpur and from the perusal of the complaint, I find that apart from a bald allegation based on speculation there is no cogent material to substantiate that the petitioner at his end in any manner had defaced the share certificates. In my view in the facts of the case no offence, whatsoever, much less under Sections 420 and 468 I.P.C. is made out against him Moreover, from the complaint, I find that the complainant had purchased the shares on 9.10.1995 and thereafter he sent it to Kanpur for endorsing the same and it was only almost three years later that it was said to be bad delivery. The complainant has not explained what action he took in regard to it in the intervening three years when the defaced share certificates were lying with him. 3 5. In view of such, this application is allowed and the order dated 16.3.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Buxar in complaint case no. 626 (C) /98 Trial No. 520/2003, by which the Magistrate has taken cognizance for offences under Sections 420 and 468 of I.P.C., against the petitioner is quashed in so far as it relates to the petitioner. 6. Application stands allowed. ( Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 12th July, 2010 NAFR/ Fahad.