TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner. Baldev Malik for the Respondent. JUDGMENT 1. By these petitions under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners seek quashing of criminal complaint No. 805/2002 under section 62 read with section 68 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 ( the Act ) filed by Registrar of Companies against them. This complaint is pending in the court of Additional Chief Metro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plaint nor had the same been placed on record. In nutshell, it has been canvassed that the complaint under section 62 read with section 68 of the Act was liable to be quashed. Reliance has also been placed on Rajeev Shukla v. Registrar of Companies [2006] 135 Delhi Law Times 599 and Manju Yadav v. Registrar of Companies 2007 (98) DRJ 312. 3. Section 62 of the Act reads as under: "62 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and no criminal complaint under section 62 of the Act would be maintainable in this regard. Similar view has been expressed in Rajiv Shukla s case ( supra ) and Manju Yadav s case ( supra ). 5. As regards the complaint under section 68 of the said Act is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent has not disputed that prior sanction of the competent authority is required before launchin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o sanction was obtained for launching prosecution under section 68 of the Act against the petitioners. In absence of prior sanction, the complaint under section 68 of the said Act would also be not maintainable. 6. For the foregoing reasons, petitions are allowed and complaint case bearing No. 805/2002 pending before the ACMM and all further proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
