Santosh Kumar. Vs. State of Bihar.

Santosh Kumar. vs State of Bihar.

Type Court Judgment Court Patna Decided Apr 15, 2011

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/916530

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/916530
Court: Patna High Court
Judge: Sheema Ali Khan, J.
Decided On: Apr 15, 2011
Case Number: CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS NO. 36055 OF 2006; CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS NO. 36267 OF 2006; CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS NO. 36524 OF 2006
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

[Asok Kumar Ganguly; Swatanter Kumar, JJ.] - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Sections 54 - Appeals in proceedings before Court -- While enhancing the compensation awarded to the claimant, the High Court fixed it at ` 345/- per square yard. Still dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the claimants preferred appeals...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 327, 406, 420, 504, 34

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Santosh Kumar.

Advocate MR. CHITTRANJAN SINGH; MR. AMISH JHA, Advs.

Respondent

State of Bihar.

Advocate MR. JHARKHAND UPADHYAY, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 327, 406, 420, 504, 34

Excerpt

[asok kumar ganguly; swatanter kumar, jj.] - land acquisition act, 1894 sections 54 - appeals in proceedings before court -- while enhancing the compensation awarded to the claimant, the high court fixed it at ` 345/- per square yard. still dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the claimants preferred appeals before the high court of delhi. the union of india felt aggrieved by this judgment of the high court enhancing the compensation granted to the claimants to the extent of ` 345/- per square yard and had filed the present appeal before this court. the only contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the judgment of the delhi high court in the case of anil kumar sharma (supra) was set aside by this court in the case of delhi development authority v. bali ram sharma [(2004) 6 scc 533] and the compensation of ` 345/- per square yard granted by the high court in that case was reduced by this court to ` 76,550/- per bigha and as such the compensation granted by the high court in the present case is also liable to be reduced as being a case covered by the said judgment. the correctness of the judgment of the reference court was questioned before the high court of delhi. appeal by the delhi development authority against this judgment of the high court arising out of rfa no.604 of 1992, came to be allowed by this court in bali ram sharma's case (supra) where compensation was reduced to ` 76,550/- per bigha. detailed reasons were recorded for setting aside the judgment of the high court......the district consumer forum, begusarai on 01.04.2006. this fact has not been mentioned in the complaint petition. during the pendency of this case, the consumer court has disposed of the complaint by dismissing it. while disposing of the case, the facts as narrated in the complaint petition have been mentioned. besides which, the consumer court had the opportunity to examine the accounts and the receipts granted by karvy stock broking ltd. it has been recorded by the consumer court that all the receipts were granted in the name of annu kumar and that the trading license of annu kumar was utilized for trading in the stock market with the money that was deposited with the company i.e. a sum of rs. 1.6 lakhs. it has been noted by the consumer court that annu kumar has not been made party in the case filed before the district consumer forum. only annu kumar who can certify to the facts with respect to the utilization of his trading license and the money by the company. it is admitted that the complainant did not have trading license and, therefore, no stocks could have been purchased and sold by the company for the complainant.5. considering these facts and findings of the consumer court, it is obvious that no offence would have made out against the petitioners as the petitioners had not utilized the trading account of the complainant/opposite party no. 2 for the purpose of buying or selling stocks and as such, there could not have been any loss incurred to the complainant.6. considering the aforesaid facts, this court find that in fact the ingredients of section 327, 406, 420 and 504/34 of the indian penal code would not be attracted in the facts of this case as the complainant did not have the trading license for stocks with the karvy stock broking ltd., where the petitioners are posted on various posts.7. in the circumstances, i quash the order dated 20.05.2006 passed in complaint case no. 551 c of 2006 pending before the judicial magistrate, 1st class,.....

Full Judgment

1. Heard Counsel for the petitioners and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. Nobody appears on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 to pursue this matter.

2. The petitioner Sidharth @ Sidharth Kumar Jha is the Branch Head of Karvy Stock Broking Ltd. at Begusarai whereas petitioner Santosh Kumar is the Dealer of Karvy Stock Broking Ltd. at Begusarai. The petitioners Abhinav Prasad @ Abhinav is the Regional Manager, Himanshu Joshi is the Divisional Manager, Nitin Saxena is the Vice President, whereas Nalini Tilak is the Divisional Staff of Karvy Stock Broking Ltd. The petitioners of Criminal Misc. No. 36367 of 2006 are working and living in the State of Uttar Pradesh and have no connection directly with the affairs in the Begusarai Branch.

3. The allegations in the complaint petition are that the complainant Dilip Kumar Mishra had deposited by various cheques a sum of Rs. 1.6 lakhs for the purpose of buying shares. It is the case of the complainant that he had instructed the petitioner Santosh Kumar to trade in shares. It is admitted on behalf of the complainant that he did not have a trading account in his name till 10.01.2006 with the Karvy Stock Broking Ltd. He only had a Demat Account. As such, the trading took place in the name of one Annu Kumar. It is alleged that the company has caused loss to the complainant and has also caused mental harassment. This complaint case was filed on 05.04.2006.

4. The complainant had also filed Consumer Complaint Case No. 21 of 2006 before the District Consumer Forum, Begusarai on 01.04.2006. This fact has not been mentioned in the complaint petition. During the pendency of this case, the Consumer Court has disposed of the complaint by dismissing it. While disposing of the case, the facts as narrated in the complaint petition have been mentioned. Besides which, the Consumer Court had the opportunity to examine the accounts and the receipts granted by Karvy Stock Broking Ltd. It has been recorded by the Consumer Court that all the receipts were granted in the name of Annu Kumar and that the trading license of Annu Kumar was utilized for trading in the stock market with the money that was deposited with the company i.e. a sum of Rs. 1.6 lakhs. It has been noted by the Consumer Court that Annu Kumar has not been made party in the case filed before the District Consumer Forum. Only Annu Kumar who can certify to the facts with respect to the utilization of his trading license and the money by the Company. It is admitted that the complainant did not have trading license and, therefore, no stocks could have been purchased and sold by the Company for the complainant.

5. Considering these facts and findings of the Consumer Court, it is obvious that no offence would have made out against the petitioners as the petitioners had not utilized the trading account of the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 for the purpose of buying or selling stocks and as such, there could not have been any loss incurred to the complainant.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court find that in fact the ingredients of Section 327, 406, 420 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code would not be attracted in the facts of this case as the complainant did not have the trading license for stocks with the Karvy Stock Broking Ltd., where the petitioners are posted on various posts.

7. In the circumstances, I quash the order dated 20.05.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 551 C of 2006 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai.

8. In the result, these three applications are allowed.

Same Court & Year Patna · 2011 Same Parties Santosh Kumar. vs State of Bihar. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Sheema Ali Khan, J. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 327, 406, 420, 504, 34

Criminal With respect to vice president Consumer forum stock market On behalf of penal code case file