Dismissed

R.Ramesh v. the Assistant Registrar of

Madras HC19 Oct 2016CRL OP/10652/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed two Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a prosecution for violations of the Companies Act. The Court held that the factual dispute regarding the commencement of business is for the trial court. The petitions were dismissed with liberty to raise points at trial, and the accused were directed to bond for ancillary attendance.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed with liberty to raise points before Trial Court; accused directed to file bond for Rs. 10,000 each to appear only at specific stages of trial.

R.Ramesh Vs the Assistant Registrar of — Company and Corporate | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 19.10.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N. PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.O.P. Nos.10652 of 2011 and 13845 of 2010 &

¶6

M.P. Nos.1 of 2010 and 1 of 2011

¶7

R. Ramesh Petitioner in Crl.O.P. No.10652 of 2011

¶8

1 T.V. Padmanabhan

¶9

2 S. Kuppuswamy

¶10

3 T.B. Narayanaswamy Petitioners in Crl.O.P. No.13845 of 2010

¶11

vs.

¶12

The Assistant Registrar Companies Shastri Bhavan Chennai 600 006 Respondent in both the Crl.O.Ps.

¶13

Crl.O.P. No.10652 of 2011 and 13845 of 2010:

¶14

Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. seeking to call for the records of E.O.C.C. No.483 of 2009 pending on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.-II, Egmore, Chennai and quash the said complaint with regard to the petitioners.

¶15

For petitioners Mr. S. Raghunathan in both OPs For respondent Mr. K. Ramanamoorthy in both OPs Central Government Standing Counsel assisted by

¶16

Mr. B. Ramesh

¶17

COMMON ORDER

¶18

These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed seeking to call for the records of E.O.C.C. No.483 of 2009, pending on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.-II, Egmore, Chennai and quash the said complaint with regard to the petitioners.

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

2 The Assistant Registrar of Companies initiated a prosecution in E.O.C.C. No.483 of 2009 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences-II), Egmore, Chennai, under Sections 209(3)(b) and 211 of the Companies Act, 1956, against Sporting Pastime India Ltd. and 5 of its Directors, challenging which Ramesh (A3) has filed Crl.O.P. No.10652 of 2011 and Padmanabhan (A4), Kuppuswamy (A5) and Narayanaswamy (A6) have preferred Crl.O.P. No.13845 of 2010.

¶21

3 Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr.S.Raghunathan, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Kuppuswamy (A5) died on 16.03.2016 and produced a copy of the death certificate.

¶22

4 In view of the above, the prosecution as against Kuppuswamy (A5) abates.

¶23

5 The allegation in the complaint is that the petitioners were Directors in Sporting Pastime India Ltd. and that they had not made any provision for Gratuity payable to employees, in the Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2004.

¶24

6 The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the business of Sporting Pastime India Ltd. had not commenced at all and this fact was also brought to the notice of the Registrar of Companies in the reply to the show cause notice that was issued.

¶25

7 In the considered opinion of this Court, this is a fact which requires to be decided only during trial and cannot be adjudicated in a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C.

¶26

8 In the result, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to raise all the points before the Trial Court. The petitioners are directed to appear before the Trial Court and furnish a bond for Rs.10,000/each without sureties, under Section 88, Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the presence of the petitioners before the Trial Court shall be dispensed with on condition that they shall be present for receiving the charge sheet, for answering the charge, at the time of questioning under Section 313, Cr.P.C. and at the time of passing judgment. They shall file an affidavit of undertaking before the Trial Court that they will not dispute their identity and that their counsel will cross-examine the prosecution witnesses on the day they are examined-in-chief, as held by the Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab, [2015 (1) MLJ (Crl.) 288]. If the petitioners adopt any dilatory tactics, it is open to the Trial Court to insist upon

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶28

their presence and remand them to custody as laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Shambhu Nath Singh [JT 2001 (4) SC 319]. Connected M.Ps. are closed.

¶29

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CCC)
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
To
1 The Assistant Registrar Companies
Shastri Bhavan
Chennai 600 006
2 The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
E.O.-II, Egmore
Chennai
3 The Public Prosecutor
Madras High Court
Chennai 600 104
+2 cc's to Mrt.S.Raghunathan,Counsel for petitioner, sr.59124 &
59130.
mv(co)
krd 25/10
Common order in
Crl.O.P. Nos.10652 of 2011 and 13845 of 2010

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

R.Ramesh v. the Assistant Registrar of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Ramesh v. the Assistant Registrar of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Kasi Vs Mr.C.Mukthukumarasamy IAS

C. Rathinam, Age 77 Years, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

S.Rajesh Vs the State Rep. by Its

P.Shanmugham Vs the Inspector of Police

A.Prabakar Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep by

K.Natarajan Vs the State Rep by