TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bhajanlal [ 1990 (11) TMI 386 - SUPREME COURT ], seven parameters were prescribed under which court can interfere for resorting to extraordinary jurisdiction. Here contingency No.5 is attracted and same states that Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. It appears that petitioner made out his case for interference. Once, he resigned in the year 1995, then he cannot be fastened with any liability for a period of 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 - Petition allowed. - Misc. Criminal Case No. 36348 of 2022, 36749 of 2022, 36752 of 2022, 36754 of 2022, 36756 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 7-11-2022 - Shri Justice Anand Pathak For the Petitioner : Shri Sameer Kumar Shrivastava-Advocate For the Respondents : Shri Praveen Kumar Newaskar-Deputy Solicitor General ORDER Regard being had to the similitude of controversy, these petitions are heard analogously and decided by this common order. For convenience's sake, facts as narrated in MCRC No.36348/2022 are taken into consideration. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... between the period 30th September, 1992 to 13th March, 1995. On 13th March, 1995, petitioner resigned and no longer continued to remain as Director of the Company thereafter. 6. In the year 2011, complaint was filed by respondent with the allegations that the Company and its Directors including the present petitioner were guilty of offence as contained in Section 162 of the Companies Act, 1956 because of non-compliance of Section 220 of the Act, 1956 for period in year 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. It was the allegation that Company has not submitted a balance sheet and profit and loss account of that period. Therefore, company and its Directors were guilty of such non-compliance. 7. Since the petitioner resigned as Director of the Company w.e.f. 13.03.1995, thereafter, when petitioner as accused (in summon's case) appeared before the Trial Court then moved an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. for discharge. It was the contention of petitioner in the said application that he resigned in the year 1995 as referred above and in support of submissions, he filed certified copy of acceptance of resignation by the Registrar of the Companies. Therefore, on the strength of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. 11. Counsel also relied upon judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Bhushan Kumar and another Vs. State (NCT Of Delhi) and others reported in (2012) 5 SCC 424 and submits that application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. can be considered in the matter of summons cases also. He referred para 20 of the said judgment of Apex Court in this regard where it has been observed that inherent power under Section 251 of the Code mandates that when the accused appears before the Trial Court pursuant to summons issued under Section 204 of the Code in a summons trial case, it is the bounden duty of the Trial Court to carefully go through the allegations made in the charge-sheet or complaint and consider the evidence to come to a conclusion whether or not, commission of any offence is disclosed and if the answer is in the affirmative, the Magistrate shall explain the substance of the accusation to the accused and ask him whether he pleads guilty otherwise, he is bound to discharge the accused as per Section 239 of the Code. 12. Counsel further relied upon the judgment rendered this Court in the case of Shivendra Dhakre Vs. Narendera Sharma reported in 2017 (3) JLJ 325 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account shall be filed with the Registrar separately:] [***] [Provided further that, - (i) in the case of a private company which is not a subsidiary of a public company, or (ii) in the case of a private company of which the entire paid-up share capital is held by one or more bodies corporate incorporated outside India, or (iii) in the case of a company which becomes a public company by virtue of section 43A, if the Central Government directs that it is not in the public interest that any person other than a member of the company shall be entitled to inspect, or obtain copies of, the profit and loss account of the company, no person other than a member of the company concerned shall be entitled to inspect, or obtain copies of, the profit and loss account of that company under section 610.] (2) If the annual general meeting of a [***] company before which a balance sheet is laid as aforesaid does not adopt the balance sheet, [or is adjourned without adopting the balance sheet], [or, if the annual general meeting of a company for any year has not been held], a statement of that fact and of the reasons therefor shall be annexed to the balance sheet [***] r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt dated 09.09.2004 and affirmed the fact that petitioner has already been exonerated vide order dated 9th September, 2004, therefore, show cause notice issued earlier was disposed of in respect of the petitioner and others similarly placed persons. The said conclusion is in Para 14 of report dated 21.10.2016. Same is reproduced as under for ready reference:- It has also been confirmed that names of Mr. P.S. Santhanankrishnan, Vijay Kumar Verma, Avtar Singh Narang, Sachidanand Chitalre, Neinz George Sibehlds, Paramjeet Singh Saluja and Ramnik Shah Saluja have been removed from the list of directors of Sterling Kalks Sand Bricks Ltd. and they have been exonerated vide order dated 09.09.2004. I accordingly, dispose of the SCNs in respect of them. 20. From the facts, it appears that S.E.B.I. has already considered this aspect twice and exonerated the petitioner from the teeth of Section 162 of the Act and other related provisions. This stands true for all other cases also, particulars of which are given in table above. All provisions and respective penalty, if looked into, then it is clear that no case is made out against the petitioner. 21. Therefore, if on such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused. 24. Considering the submission and going through the documents appended thereto as well as the reply filed by the respondent, it appears that petitioner made out his case for interference. Once, he resigned in the year 1995, then he cannot be fastened with any liability for a period of 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. 25. Resultantly , petition is hereby allowed and impugned order dated 28th of May, 2022 (Annexure P-1) as well as the proceedings pending before the Trial Court (Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior) in Criminal Cases No.3634/2011, No.1481/2015, No.2048/2015, No.3633/2011, and No.1482/2015, so far as it relates to petitioner only, namely Sachitanand Chitala (Chitale) (Accused No.5 before the Trial Court) have been quashed. For rest of the accused, trial may proceed in accordance w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
