Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2022 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 207 - HC - Companies LawSeeking quashing of complaint and prosecution proceedings - Validity of Asset Transfer Agreement - vicarious liability - as per Asset Transfer Agreement (ATA), both the parties failed in meeting their respective conditions within the Long Stop Date and consequently the said ATA expired - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the shareholders of the said Company having 13.32% shares each. It is also not in dispute that the said Company and respondent Nos.2 and 3 had passed a resolution to sell the property of the Company to M/s. Clininvent Research Private Limited. The only dispute that was raised by respondent Nos.2 and 3 in their complaint is that accused including the petitioners herein did not adhere to the terms and conditions of the ATA dated 24.06.2016 for the reason that in ATA it was mentioned about Long Stop Date i.e., by 22.08.2016, the entire process with regard to the sale of assets of the Company to M/s. Clininvent Research Private Limited should have been completed. In case, the said process could not be completed by the said date, the said agreement would stand terminated. The accused did not complete the said sale process by the Long Stop Date, and there was no extension of Long Stop Date. In view of the same, transfer of the assets of the Company in favour of the Purchaser is nothing but illegal. According to the learned senior counsel, all the said contentions raised by respondent Nos.2 and 3 before the NCLT were rejected in C.P. No.5/241/HDB/2017 vide order dated 11.02.2020. Further, the allegation that the accused did not adhere to the terms and conditions of ATA dated 24.06.2016, whether the Company had obtained the consent of respondent Nos.2 and 3 for extension of Long Stop Date after its expiry, whether the sale process was done in terms of the said ATA dated 24.06.2016 and that the accused never forged and fabricated any document, much less the resolution and that the petitioners herein are only employees of the Purchaser Company and they did not do anything in their personal capacity etc., are all triable issues which are to be adjudicated by the trial Court after full-fledged trial, but not by this Court in a petition filed under Section - 482 of the Cr.P.C. In a given set of facts and circumstances, a contractual dispute, apart from giving rise to cause of action for seeking remedy under Companies Act, may also involve the criminal acts. The nature and scope of civil proceedings are different from criminal proceedings and mere fact that complaint relates to a company’s transaction or breach of contract for which a civil remedy is availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The only test which has to be adopted is to find out as to whether the allegations in the complaint disclose the criminal offence or not - The defences that might be available, or facts/aspects which when established during trial, might lead to acquittal, were not grounds for quashing a complaint at the threshold. At that stage, the only relevant question was whether averments in the complaint spell out ingredients of a criminal offence or not. The Court has to consider whether complaint discloses any prima facie offences that were alleged against the respondents. Correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only during trial. At the initial stage of issuance of process, it was not open to Courts to stifle proceedings by entering into merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Criminal complaints could not be quashed only on the ground that, allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If ingredients of offence alleged against Accused were prima facie made out in complaint, criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted. The petitioners herein have not made out any ground to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid C.C. Thus, the present petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed - Petition dismissed.
|