Dismissed

Lekhraj T. Bhojwani v. Deputy Registrar of Companies and Anr.

Bombay HC7 May 2024APL/548/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought quashing of process in a private complaint for offence under Section 220(3) of the Companies Act. Court declined to exercise Section 482 CrPC jurisdiction given the alternate remedy of revision, dismissed the application with liberty to approach the Sessions Court.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file appropriate proceedings before the Sessions Court, including prayer for condonation of delay.

Lekhraj T. Bhojwani Vs Deputy Registrar of Companies and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Digitally signed by CHITRA CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE SANJAY Date: SONAWANE 2024.05.07 23:15:09 Chitra Sonawane. +0530 1 11-APL-548-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Application No.548 of 2024

¶3

Lekhraj T. Bhojwani Age: 62, Occupation:Business 11, Atur Park, Sio-Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400071 ... Applicant.

¶4

Versus

¶5

Deputy Registrar of Companies Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of Maharashtra Everest Building, 100 Marine Drive, Mumbai-400 002.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra Through Public Prosecutor, High Court, Mumbai ... Respondents.

¶7

Mr Bhomesh Bellam a/w Vijeet Trivedi i/by Ganesh & Co. for the applicant.

¶8

Ms Shilpa Talhar, APP/State for respondent/State.

¶9

Coram : R. N. Laddha, J.

¶10

Date : 7 May 2024. P.C. :

¶11

Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant.

¶12

The applicant in this case is arraigned as an accused in a

¶13

Chitra Sonawane. 2 11-APL-548-2024.doc

¶14

private complaint filed by respondent No.1. The complaint led to issuance of process for the offence punishable under Section 220(3) of the Companies Act, 1956.

¶15

The well established legal principle dictates that this Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances where justice demands it. It is not in dispute that the applicant has the alternate and effective remedy of challenging the process issuance order through revision.

¶16

In the light of the above, this Court is not inclined to invoke the inherent powers. The application is dismissed accordingly, but the applicant is granted liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the Sessions Court. Furthermore, the applicant may seek condonation of delay, which prayer, the Sessions Court will decide on its own merits and in accordance with the law.

¶17

It is made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the matter and all contentions of the parties are left open.

¶18

Chitra Sonawane. 3 11-APL-548-2024.doc

¶19

The criminal application is disposed of accordingly.

¶20

[ R. N. Laddha, J. ]

Lekhraj T. Bhojwani v. Deputy Registrar of Companies and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lekhraj T. Bhojwani v. Deputy Registrar of Companies and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rehan Iqbal Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra

Vinay Sarwan Mehta Vs State of Maharashtra

Zaitoon Gandhi Vs State of Maharashtra

M/S. Ami Housing Ltd. Vs Urmila Mahesh Chauhan and Others

M/S. Ami Housing Ltd. Vs Urmila Mahesh Chauhan

Ranchod Narayan Chauhan Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Another