Allowed

Sanjay Kumar Jain & Anr. v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office

Delhi HC13 Dec 2024W.P.(CRL)/444/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi quashed the summoning order against petitioners, former directors, for offences under the Companies Act, 1956, holding that cognizance was erroneously taken after the one-year limitation period under Section 468 CrPC without condonation of delay.

What did the court decide?

Summoning order dated 31.10.2022 in Complaint Case No. CC/1484/2021 and all proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners set aside.

Sanjay Kumar Jain & Anr. Vs Serious Fraud Investigation Office — Delhi HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~121

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(CRL) 444/2023 & CRL.M.A. 4103/2023 SANJAY KUMAR JAIN & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Harish Malhotra, Sr. Adv. (through VC) with Mr. Pankaj Kapoor & Mr. Nikhil Bahri, Advs.

¶4

versus

¶5

SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTI OFFICE	GATION	..	...Res	pondent
Through:	Ms.	Shiva	L	akshmi,
	CGSC	with	Mr.	Govind
	Sharma	&	Mr.	Salman,
	Advs.	with	Mr	. Nitin
	Agnihot	ri	(Pro	secutor-
	SFIIO)

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN O R D E R % 13.12.2024

¶7

The present petition is filed seeking quashing of summoning order dated 31.10.2022 in Complaint Case No. CC/1484/2021.

¶8

It was alleged that the accused company, M/s Laksh Rubber India Private Limited had not filed the balance sheets for the financial year 2013-14.

¶9

It is alleged that the petitioners were the Directors at the relevant time. It is undisputed that the petitioners had resigned with effect from 14.08.2014 from the Board of M/s Laksh Rubber India Private Limited. Therefore, the petitioners are sought to be prosecuted for the non-filing of the balance sheet up to the time they were on the Board of the accused company.

¶10

This is a digitally signed order.

¶11

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/12/2024 at 11:45:48

¶12

It is also undisputed that the sanction order for investigation was passed by the Central Government on 15.10.2015 and the investigation report was prepared on 18.03.2020, thus, even if the case of the prosecution is taken at the highest, they had the knowledge of the commission of the offence on 18.03.2020.

¶13

Concededly, the complaint was filed against the petitioners for offences under Section 159 read with Sections 162 and 220(3) of the Companies Act, 1956. The offences are punishable with fine only.

¶14

In terms of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘ CrPC ’), no cognizance for such offences which are punishable with fine only can be taken after a period of one year of the knowledge of the offence.

¶15

In the opinion of this Court, the cognizance in the present case is erroneously taken. It is also an admitted case that no application was filed by the prosecution under Section 473 of the CrPC seeking condonation of delay.

¶16

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the summoning order dated 31.10.2022 in Complaint Case No. CT/1484/2021 and all proceedings emanating therefrom are set aside in regard to the petitioners.

¶17

It is made clear that this Court has not impeded the learned Trial Court from proceeding further with the matter against other accused persons.

¶18

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶19

DECEMBER 13, 2024 “SS”

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/12/2024 at 11:45:48

Sanjay Kumar Jain & Anr. v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Jain & Anr. v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office

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

Rushi Praful Bhatt Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Shakti Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Manpreet Singh @ Anuj Vs State and Another

Ms B through Her Mother Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

Azad Hussain Vs State of Delhi & Anr.

Rajbir Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Gaurav Goyal Vs State of Nct, Delhi & Ors.

Bhutana Vs State Gnct of Delhi

Jasima Khatoon Vs State NCT of Delhi

Sh. Naresh @ Arun and Ors. Vs the State and Ors.

Intzar Ahmad & Ors. Vs the State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Mr Badrinath Behera Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Raj Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs the State & Ors.

State Vs Sanjeev Bhatia