<p>Bengaluru: The <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/karnataka-high-court">High Court of Karnataka</a> has dismissed a petition filed by directors and employees of Anand Rathi Shares and Stock Brokers Limited, who were accused of cheating and forgery in a case lodged by an investor.</p>.<p>The petition was filed by the firm’s director, Anand Rathi, and managing directors Pradeep Kumar Gupta and Priti Pradeep Gupta, along with others, challenging a trial court order that had taken cognisance of the crime. The trial court had previously rejected the 'B' report filed by the police on two occasions.</p>.Karnataka High Court halts tree felling for Command Hospital expansion .<p>The case was initiated by Vishwanath Pujari, a Bengaluru-based investor, who had invested in stocks through Anand Rathi Shares and Stock Brokers.</p>.<p>Pujari alleged that substantial transactions worth several crores had taken place in his account without his knowledge or benefit. He expressed concerns that such transactions could implicate him if questioned by statutory authorities, as he was unaware of why the petitioners had transacted in his account.</p>.<p>The petitioners argued that the matter was a commercial transaction or civil dispute being falsely portrayed as a criminal case. They further pointed out that the agreement between the parties included an arbitration clause. Their advocate contended that the trial court's decision to reject the 'B' report and take cognisance was contrary to legal precedents set by the high court in the Dr Ravi Kumar case.</p>.<p>Justice M Nagaprasanna, however, upheld the trial court's decision, stating that the magistrate had, through detailed orders passed on January 23, 2019, and June 30, 2021, rejected both 'B' reports. The magistrate had found evidence of unauthorised transactions in Pujari's account and, therefore, rejected the reports.</p>.<p>"I do not find any error in the order of rejection of the ‘B’ reports or taking of cognisance by the magistrate for it to be in violation of the law laid down by the coordinate bench in the Dr Ravi Kumar case. The order impugned is in strict consonance with the law. The submission that the issue is purely civil in nature; the court concerned could not have rejected the 'B' reports and taken cognisance of the offence. The 'B' reports were filed not once, but twice. This submission is neither here nor there, as the reasons rendered by the court concerned to reject the 'B' reports and taking of cognisance are cogent and the allegations against the petitioners are a maze of facts. Entertainment of this petition would run counter to the Supreme Court's decision in the Kaptan Singh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh case,” the court observed.</p>
<p>Bengaluru: The <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/karnataka-high-court">High Court of Karnataka</a> has dismissed a petition filed by directors and employees of Anand Rathi Shares and Stock Brokers Limited, who were accused of cheating and forgery in a case lodged by an investor.</p>.<p>The petition was filed by the firm’s director, Anand Rathi, and managing directors Pradeep Kumar Gupta and Priti Pradeep Gupta, along with others, challenging a trial court order that had taken cognisance of the crime. The trial court had previously rejected the 'B' report filed by the police on two occasions.</p>.Karnataka High Court halts tree felling for Command Hospital expansion .<p>The case was initiated by Vishwanath Pujari, a Bengaluru-based investor, who had invested in stocks through Anand Rathi Shares and Stock Brokers.</p>.<p>Pujari alleged that substantial transactions worth several crores had taken place in his account without his knowledge or benefit. He expressed concerns that such transactions could implicate him if questioned by statutory authorities, as he was unaware of why the petitioners had transacted in his account.</p>.<p>The petitioners argued that the matter was a commercial transaction or civil dispute being falsely portrayed as a criminal case. They further pointed out that the agreement between the parties included an arbitration clause. Their advocate contended that the trial court's decision to reject the 'B' report and take cognisance was contrary to legal precedents set by the high court in the Dr Ravi Kumar case.</p>.<p>Justice M Nagaprasanna, however, upheld the trial court's decision, stating that the magistrate had, through detailed orders passed on January 23, 2019, and June 30, 2021, rejected both 'B' reports. The magistrate had found evidence of unauthorised transactions in Pujari's account and, therefore, rejected the reports.</p>.<p>"I do not find any error in the order of rejection of the ‘B’ reports or taking of cognisance by the magistrate for it to be in violation of the law laid down by the coordinate bench in the Dr Ravi Kumar case. The order impugned is in strict consonance with the law. The submission that the issue is purely civil in nature; the court concerned could not have rejected the 'B' reports and taken cognisance of the offence. The 'B' reports were filed not once, but twice. This submission is neither here nor there, as the reasons rendered by the court concerned to reject the 'B' reports and taking of cognisance are cogent and the allegations against the petitioners are a maze of facts. Entertainment of this petition would run counter to the Supreme Court's decision in the Kaptan Singh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh case,” the court observed.</p>