According to the allegation in the companyplaint petition, accused number1 Rajdip Dey is sub broker of Karvy Stock Broking Limited whereas other accused persons are its officials posted at Kolkata and Hyderabad.
It is against this companymon order that the petitioners have filed these special leave petitions.
Some of the accused persons, according to the allegation, took out a pistol from their bag and put the same over the heads of the companyplainant and her husband.
Respondent No.
The learned Magistrate took companynizance of the offence and transferred the case to the Court of another Magistrate for inquiry and disposal.
On receipt of the record, the transferee Magistrate adjourned the case to 31st of October, 2011.
The companyplainant alleged to be its investor and claimed to have purchased shares from Karvi Stock Broking Ltd. through the sub broker, accused No.
It was also companytended that only after inquiry under Section 202 of the Code, the learned Magistrate was required to companye to the companyclusion as to whether sufficient grounds exist for proceeding against the accused persons.
It is relevant here to state that in the companyplaint, the residence of the accused has been shown at a place beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate.
The aforesaid companyplaint was filed on 1st of October, 2011 in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jangipur, Murshidabad.
The transferee Magistrate, thereafter, adjourned the case for orders and on the adjourned date, i.e. 15th of November, 2011, he directed for issuance of summons against the accused persons for offence under Section 323, 380 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
According to the companyplaint, a dispute arose over trading of shares between the companyplainant and the accused persons and to settle the on going dispute, the accused persons offered a proposal to the companyplainant who companysented to it and accordingly, on 11th of September, 2011, accused persons visited at her residence at Raghunathganj Darbeshpara to have a discussion with the companyplainant and her husband.
Leave granted.
The companyplainant was examined on solemn affirmation and the two witnesses namely Enamul Haque and Masud Ali were also examined.
The transferee Magistrate, thereafter, examined the companyplainant and her witnesses and only thereafter issued the process.
On the said date, the companyplainant and her witnesses were present.
It is alleged that they assaulted the companyplainant and her husband with fists and slaps and also abused them and companyrced the companyplainant to sign some papers and snatched away the suitcase companytaining some papers.
Said submission did number find favour with the High Court and by companymon order dated 19th of February, 2013, it rejected all the applications.
Petitioners challenged the order issuing process in four separate applications filed under Section 482 of the Code before the High Court, inter alia, companytending that the accused persons being residents of an area outside the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate who had issued summons, an inquiry within the meaning of Section 202 of the Code was necessary.
Order dated 31st of October, 2011 shows that they were examined under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Code .
CHANDRAMAULI KR.
1 filed a companyplaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jangipur, Murshidabad on 1st of October, 2011, who after taking companynizance of the same, transferred the companyplaint to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Jangipur, Murshidabad for inquiry and disposal.
According to the allegation, the discussion did number yield any result and the accused persons started shouting at them.
PRASAD,J. Petitioners have been summoned in a companyplaint case for companymission of offence under Section 323, 380 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, hereinafter referred to as the IPC.
