Mr Sandeep T a Vs the State by Doddapete Police Station

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO. 2067/2021, PENDING IN THE FILE OF JMFC II COURT AT SHIVAMOGGA.

¶30

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

Petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2

¶33

have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.PC, with a prayer to quash criminal proceedings initiated against them, in C.C.No.2067/2021 on the file of JMFC-II Court Shivamogga, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 504 and 201 r/w Section 34 IPC.

¶34

In support of the petition, the petitioners have contended that complainant invested amount in HDFC

¶35

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:33630 CRL.P No. 2922 of 2022

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

mutual funds, which involves risk factor. Complainant is a homemaker and all the trading was done by her husband Sri Vignesh by opening the demat account. Since he was a retired professor in agriculture university, he carried out the trading activities. The complainant has received SMS

¶38

and emails from the company. However, she has not raised any objections with regard to any discrepancies. In fact, the husband of complainant used to visit the Office of the petitioners to do the trading activities. He used to put signature in the visitors list. Petitioners with the bonafide intentions received his request for trading and he used to sign on behalf of complainant.

¶39

2.1 Initially, complainant invested the amount in

¶40

HDFC mutual fund and after giving the collateral security on the mutual fund, future and optional trading was done by the husband of the complainant. The jurisdictional police without aware of the same and having no knowledge about the trading have filed a charge sheet, without conducting proper investigation. Continuation of

¶41

4 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:33630 CRL.P No. 2922 of 2022

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and hence the petition.

¶45

On the other hand learned HCGP representing

¶46

the respondent No.1/State and learned counsel representing respondent No.2/complainant would submit that accused No.1 who is running "my money and Laxmi finance" and accused No.2 Prakash Pandurangi visited her during January-2018 and persuaded her to invest money in HDFC mutual fund with an assurance that she would get more interest than on fixed deposit. Accused No.2 also pursued her saying that since accused No.1 is the authorised advisor of HDFC mutual funds she would be benefited. Accordingly, she invested Rs.8 lakhs through four cheques. Accused No.1 took her signature to a blank format, saying that he would fill up the same, with the request to furnish the OTP. He also advised that she need not bother about the several messages she would be receiving and that he would apprise her whenever there is any important matter.

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:33630 CRL.P No. 2922 of 2022

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

3.1 In the beginning, dividend was credited to her account every month. However, from October-2018 onwards dividend reduced considerably. From July-2019, the credit of dividend was totally stopped. When enquired accused No.1, advised that if she invest Rs.50,000/-, she should get back the dividend normally. However, later she came to know that accused No.1 has invested the money belonging to her in Motilal Oswal trading instead of HDFC. When complainant enquired about the dividend, accused No.1 informed her that the process is going on.

¶50

Few months prior to the filing of the complaint, complainant approached accused No.1 with a request to return her investment. After dragging on for considerable amount of time, accused No.1 informed her that she has lost all her money in trading. When she questioned him that she never invested in trading, he claimed that she has signed the forms and that she has already received messages. However, on enquiry with the experts, she came to know that accused No.1 has violated

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:33630 CRL.P No. 2922 of 2022

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

several provisions. She has not given a pre-trade confirmation letter.

¶54

Later, she came to know that accused No.1 has submitted documents by forging her signature to 298 times. Since the Grievance redressal committee (GRC) of NSE is not having jurisdiction to investigate the veracity or otherwise of the documents, including forgery, she was advised to file police complaint. Accordingly, complainant has filed the complaint. After conducting detailed investigation, the concerned police have filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2. Matter requires full fledged trial. Disputed facts cannot be decided in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and pray to dismiss the petition.

¶55

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶56

It is not in dispute that accused No.1 is

¶57

authorised advisor of HDFC mutual funds. He is also doing trading. It is also not in dispute that at the behest of accused Nos.1 and 2, complainant invested Rs.8,00,000/-

¶58

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:33630 CRL.P No. 2922 of 2022

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

by issuing four cheques. She was convinced by accused No.1 that she would get more interest than in a fixed deposit. Though initially dividends were credited to her account, later, the quantum is reduced and ultimately, when she did not get any dividends, on enquiry, accused No.1 made her to invest Rs.50,000/- with a promise that she would get the regular dividend. Ultimately, when complainant failed to get any returns, she opted to withdraw the investments.

¶61

At this stage, accused No.1 informed her that all her investment was lost in trading. Since complainant did not consent for investing her money in trading, she made enquiry with the Grievance Redressal Committee of NSE and came to know that 298 forged signature of her are utilized for trading and ultimately she was cheated. Since the Grievance Redressal Committee is not having jurisdiction to entertain the criminal aspect, she was advised to file the complaint. In fact after conducting detailed investigation, the concerned police filed charge

¶62

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:33630 CRL.P No. 2922 of 2022

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2. Accused No.1 has alleged that it was the husband of complainant who was doing trading in her name. It is a matter to be established at the trial. In the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C disputed facts cannot be decided. In the light of prima facie case made out against the petitioners, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶65