Allowed

C.B.Sharma v. the Asst.Registrar of Companies

Kerala HC3 Mar 2009Crl.MC/279/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a petition filed by the 4th accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a complaint under the Companies Act. The court found that the petitioner, a director, had resigned long before the alleged offense and the complainant failed to verify records before implicating him.

What did the court decide?

Complaint and further proceedings against the petitioner/4th accused in the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court were quashed.

C.B.Sharma Vs the Asst.Registrar of Companies — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2009 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1930

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 279 of 2006()

¶6

-----------------------AGAINST THE COMPLAINT IN LP NO.112/2005 IN ST.358/2005 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E.O),ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S): 4TH ACCUSED.

¶8

¶9

C.B.SHARMA, A-10, MAHARANI BAUGH, RING ROAD, NEW DELHI.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA

¶11

SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN

¶12

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE.

¶13

¶14

THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, KERALA, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN 682 011.

¶15

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHIR THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKKEN

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.498/06 IN CRL.M.C.NO.279/06

¶19

//DISMISSED//

¶20

03.03.2009

¶21

SD/-M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.

¶22

TRUE COPY

¶23

P.A.TO JUDGE

¶24

M.C.HARI RANI, J.

¶25

--------------------------------CRL.M.C.No.279 OF 2006

¶26

-----------------------------------DATED THIS THE 3^rd DAY OF MARCH, 2009

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

Petitioner herein is the 4^th accused in L.P.No.112/05 in S.T.No.358/05 on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Court, Ernakulam. The offence alleged against the petitioner and other accused is under Section 162 of the Companies Act, for violation of Section 159 of the Act. The complaint was filed on 26.4.2004 by the Assistant Registrar of Companies, the first respondent as the complainant, copy of which is produced as Annexure A, wherein the allegation was that the 1^st accused Company did not file the annual return for the year 2003 in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash Annexure A complaint and all further proceedings against the petitioner/4^th accused.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶30

and also the learned Public Prosecutor. No appearance was made by the first respondent-complainant.

¶31

Crl.M.C. 279/06

¶32

¶33

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was implicated in the present case as the Director of M/s Ram Bahadur Thakur (Kerala) Pvt.Ltd., the first accused. Annexure A complaint is dated 26.4.2004. It is submitted that the offence alleged against the 1^st accused as per Annexure A is the failure of the Company to submit the annual return for the year 2003. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner herein, the 4^th accused in the above case was not the Director of the Company at the relevant time and he resigned from the Board of Directors of the Company with effect from 29.10.1985, which was accepted by the Board of Directors of the Company, in its meeting held on 29.10.1985. True copy of the minutes of the meeting is produced as Annexure B. That resignation of the petitioner was also intimated to the Registrar of Companies, as revealed from Annexure C (Form No.32) submitted by the first accused-Company before the Registrar of Companies.

¶34

The first respondent herein, who is the complainant has not entered appearance in this petition. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the first respondent is the competent

¶35

Crl.M.C. 279/06

¶36

¶37

authority who filed the complaint against the petitioner and other accused.

¶38

From the facts and circumstances of this case and the

¶39

documents produced on the side of the petitioner, I find that the complainant has impleaded the petitioner as an accused in the present case without properly verifying the records. Therefore, no purpose will be served by continuing the proceedings against the petitioner, which is an abuse of process of court and is liable to be quashed. Hence this petition is allowed, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court envisaged under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., Annexure A complaint against the petitioner/4^th accused and further proceedings in L.P.No.112/05 in S.T.No.358/05 on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Court, Ernakulam is quashed.

¶40

In the result, the Crl.M.C. is allowed.

¶41

M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.

¶42

dsn

C.B.Sharma v. the Asst.Registrar of Companies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.B.Sharma v. the Asst.Registrar of Companies

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

T.Narayanankutty Vs State of Kerala

V.K.Raghu Vs the State of Kerala

Sasidharan Vs State of Kerala

C.B.Sharma Vs the Asst.Registrar of Companies

K.J. Santhakumari Vs I.C.I.C.I. Bank & Others

Rarichan George Vs State of Kerala