TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion to it, three more FIRs have been lodged by the complainant against the petitioners in succession apparently on account of the fact that the prayer for grant of interim relief relating to convening the extraordinary general meeting of the company was not acceded to by NCLT. The first such prayer was rejected by NCLT on 26.07.2021 and thereafter again on 10.08.2021. It is in this background that it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned FIR has precipitated on account of malafide reasons. Though the investigation of the impugned FIR shall go on, however, till the next date of listing, the petitioners shall not be arrested in connection thereto - Application disposed off. - Misc. Bench No. - 27486 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 30-11-2021 - Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya And Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav JJ. For the Petitioner : Purnendu Chakravarty For the Respondent : G.A., Abhishek Misra ORDER Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3 has been accepted by the office of learned Government Advocate, whereas Shri Abhishek Misra and Shri Satyendra Pal Singh, Advocates have put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.4. Responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en filed which clearly show the malafide intention of the complainant in lodging the impugned First Information Report. Further submission on behalf of the petitioners made before us is that under the scheme of the Companies Act, 2013 a detailed procedure in respect of grievance redressal mechanism has been provided and the complainant having taken recourse to the said procedure, could not have lodged the impugned First Information Report. Heavy reliance has been placed in support of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners on a judgment rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Doraisamy and another vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, CCB and another, reported in [(2019) SCC Online Mad 1354]. It has been stated by the learned Senior Advocate that in somewhat similar circumstances the F.I.R. lodged by the complainant in the said case was quashed by the Madras High Court with a direction to the Registrar of Companies to take a note of the complaint and to cause inquiry not only in relation to the affairs of the company and to file its report to the Central Government for further action. Learned Senior Advocate has also brought to our no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other, Criminal Appeal No.1195 of 2018. Further reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the complainant on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Arunachal Pradesh vs. Ramchandra Rabidas @ Ratan Rabidas and another, reported in [(2019) 10 SCC 75]. Various other judgments have also been relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant in support of his submission. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties for grant of interim relief. The allegations made in the impugned First Information Report are that the complainant is a Shareholder and Director of a company named as Piscesia Power Transmission Private Ltd. and that it is the complainant who had established the said company from his own resources and at the time of registration of the company, the petitioner no.1 was also a Director and a Shareholder. Further allegation in the impugned First Information Report is that the petitioner no.1 and her husband petitioner no.2-Vivek Kumar Yadav, Manoj Kumar Singh-petitioner no.4 and Auditor and Chartered Accountant of the Company, Tushar Nagar, petitioner no.3 have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by any person that business of a company is being carried out for a fraudulent or unlawful purpose, he may carry out such inquiry as he deems fit. Under the first proviso appended to Section 206 (4), the Central Government may also direct the Registrar or an Inspector appointed by it to carry out the inquiry. Second proviso appended to Section 206 (4) provides that where the business of a company has been or is being carried on for fraudulent or unlawful purpose, every officer in default shall be punishable for fraud in the manner as provided in Section 447. Section 208 provides that after inquiry under Section 206 of the Act, 2013, the Registrar/Inspector shall submit a report to the Central Government which may include a recommendation that further investigation into the affairs of the company is necessary. Once the Central Government receives a report of the Registrar/Inspector or is intimated by a company on the basis of a special resolution that affairs of the company ought to be investigated or it is of the opinion that such investigation is necessary in public interest, it may order for investigation. Sub-section (2) of Section 210 provides that if an order is passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Section 439 permits a member of a company also, along with Registrar, shareholder or a person authorized by the Central Government, to make a complaint in writing for taking cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any company or any officer thereof. Apart from approaching the Registrar and the Central Government as discussed above, under Section 213 of the Act, 2013 such a person can make an application to the Tribunal (NCLT) to investigate into the affairs of the company. Section 213 (1) (b) provides that on an application made by any person or even otherwise if it is satisfied that there are circumstances suggesting that the business of the company is being conducted with intent to defraud its creditors or members or any other person or otherwise for a fraudulent or unlawful purpose or in a manner which is oppressive to any of its members, the Tribunal may order that affairs of the company ought to be investigated by a Inspector/Inspectors appointed by the Central Government. The provisions contained in Section 213 make it mandatory for the Central Government to appoint one or more competent officers as Inspector to investigate into the affairs of a com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtain instances/guidelines have been given where quashing of FIR is permissible. One such instance where quashing of FIR is permissible, as per the said judgment, is where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide or where proceeding is instituted maliciously with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. We note that it is not only the FIR which is under challenge in this petition which has been lodged but in addition to it, three more FIRs have been lodged by the complainant against the petitioners in succession apparently on account of the fact that the prayer for grant of interim relief relating to convening the extraordinary general meeting of the company was not acceded to by NCLT. The first such prayer was rejected by NCLT on 26.07.2021 and thereafter again on 10.08.2021. It is in this background that it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned FIR has precipitated on account of malafide reasons. Thus, we prima facie find that this case is covered by the guidelines contained in Bhajan Lal case (supra) where quashing of FIR is permissible under Ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
