Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2018 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 2135 - HC - Companies LawRejection of bail application - Territorial Jurisdiction of Noida Police - Fraudulent transactions with the company - misappropriation of funds of the Company - It was alleged the flats and shops were sold in favour of the co-accused persons at a much lower price than the scheduled price, who in their turn, sold the flats and shops to the bona fide purchasers at a higher price - Prosecution for offences - Jurisdiction of the Civil Court as per the provision of Section 430 of Companies Act. Territorial Jurisdiction of Noida Police - first contention raised by the Counsel for the applicant is that the registered office of the Company is situated in Noida and all the decisions were taken at Noida, therefore, only the Noida police has territorial jurisdiction to investigate the matter and the Police Station Sirol, Distt. Gwalior, has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter - HELD THAT:- The entire offence has taken place in Gwalior. In the considered opinion of the Court, the offence has been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Sirol, Distt. Gwalior. Even otherwise, if for the sake of argument, it is accepted, that the decision taken at Noida, can also be treated as a part of cause of action/offence, then it is well-established principle of law that where the offence has taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of more than one police stations, then each of the police stations will have jurisdiction to investigate the offence - the objection of the applicant, with regard to the lack of territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Sirol, Distt. Gwalior is hereby rejected. Prosecution for offences - it is contended by applicant that in view of the specific provisions of Sections 439(1), (2), 436(1)(2),441, 442, 435 and 445 of Companies Act, the applicant cannot be prosecuted for offences punishable under Penal Code - HELD THAT:- It is fairly conceded by the Counsel for the applicant, that there is no provision in Companies Act, which ousts the applicability of the provisions of Indian Penal Code - The Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF NCT OF DELHI VERSUS SANJAY AND JAYSUKH BAVANJI SHINGALIA VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT has held Reading the provisions of the Act minutely and carefully, prima facie we are of the view that there is no complete and absolute bar in prosecuting persons under the Penal Code where the offences committed by persons are penal and cognizable offence - This Court is of the considered opinion, that the second contention of the applicant, that he cannot be prosecuted for offences under the Indian Penal Code, and can be prosecuted for punishments provided under the Companies Act only, cannot be accepted, hence, it is rejected. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court as per the provision of Section 430 of Companies Act - HELD THAT:- The submission made by the Counsel for the applicant, that the word "Civil Court", should be read as "Criminal Court", is misconceived. If the intention of the Legislature was to exclude the provisions of Indian Penal Code, then nothing had prevented the Legislature from making such a provision. Even otherwise, it is a well-established principle of law that the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Court has to be specific and cannot be inferred, and the provisions excluding the jurisdiction have to be construed strictly. Thus, the word "Civil Court", cannot be read as "Criminal Court", as suggested by the Counsel for the applicant. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion, that the F.I.R. in Crime No. 27/2017 registered at Police Station Sirol, Distt. Gwalior for offence under Sections 420, 467, 409 and 120-B of I.P.C. read with Section 166, 188-B of Companies Act, as well as the criminal proceedings in S.T. No. 437/2017 pending in the Court of 9th A.S.J., Gwalior cannot be quashed. Application dismissed.
|