TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nants have been given, but under Section 154 of Cr.P.C, it is not imperative that the aggrieved person is only authorized to lodge FIR. FIR has been lodged by SHO on the directions of ASP who after obtaining relevant information from SEBI regarding duped customers has directed the SHO to lodge FIR. The FIR contains the names of customers. After lodging of FIR, statements of such complainants have been recorded which reflect offences as laid down in the FIR and which are cognizable in nature. Thus, it is not that there is violation of provision of SEBI Act only, but provisions of IPC are also prima facie attracted for investigation of which police is the only appropriate authority. Investigation by police is not excluded in view of Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ens, but also causing loss to the Government and Financial and Banking Institutions in a big way. The activities of such advisory firms have to be dealt with an iron hand. Further, Tarun Chandani, the main owner of this company is still absconding - no case is made out for grant of bail to the applicant. The same stands rejected. - M.Cr.C. No.42541/2020 - - - Dated:- 4-11-2020 - HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI SHAILENDRA SHUKLA Heard the learned counsel through video conferencing. Shri Manish Gupta, Advocate for the applicant Ms. Geetanjali Chourasiya, Public Prosecutor for State ORDER Submissions were made on this second repeat bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail. The applicant is being i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity market are subject to market risk and that the firm does not provide any guarantee service or profit sharing service, that out of seven complaints against the aforesaid advisory firm, five have already been resolved and it is for the SEBI Board to initiate action against the firm, police is not authorized in view of Section 26 of SEBI Act. 4. Learned counsel has submitted in support an order passed by this Court in M.Cr.C.No.23883/2020 (Alka Shrivastava vs. State of M.P.), order dated 22.9.2020 in which this Court has referred to Section 26(1) of SEBI Act which reads as under :- 26(1) No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules or regulations made thereunder, save on a complaint made by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irected the SHO to lodge FIR. The FIR contains the names of customers. After lodging of FIR, statements of such complainants have been recorded which reflect offences as laid down in the FIR and which are cognizable in nature. Thus, it is not that there is violation of provision of SEBI Act only, but provisions of IPC are also prima facie attracted for investigation of which police is the only appropriate authority. Investigation by police is not excluded in view of Section 32 of SEBI Act. 7. For invoking the principles of M.P. Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000, it should be shown that the amount which has been taken by the company from its client was in the form of deposit. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... money could not be termed as fees but was more in the nature of 'deposit'. It has been seen that such advisory companies registered with SEBI have mushroomed in various parts of the country. However, instead of doing their business by charging fees, are involved in taking lump sum amounts from their clients, assuring them with the promise of huge returns, but are indulging in malpractices resulting in huge loss to investors. On papers such company appears to be properly constituted, showing to be acting as per their given ambit and scope of business, but in reality the consumers are given a raw deal. It is also found that the whole operation is run by persons who are not qualified as per set out norms. The applicant in the present c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
