The quashed criminal proceedings initiated under section 219(4) of the Companies Act, 1956, were dropped due to lack of merit, excessive delay in trial, and harassment by the complainant, ordering the impugned order set aside.
Criminal proceedings in complaint No.650/2001 (5/2000) are quashed and set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORDER
SB Criminal Misc Petition No. 439/2005
Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd & ors versus Tej Singh & anr 10.1.2013
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI
Mr RK Mathur, Sr Adv with Mr Angad Mirdha and Mr Ashish Sharma – for petitioner
Mr Laxman Meena, PP – for the State
Mr Satish Chandra Mittal – for complainant -non-petitioner No.1 BY THE COURT:
By this criminal misc. petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 5.1.2001 passed by the Special Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur City, Jaipur taking cognizance for the offence under section 219 (4) of the Companies Act, 1956 with the prayer that criminal proceedings against the petitioners may be dropped.
It is stated that criminal proceedings for offence under section 219(4) of the Companies Act can be initiated at the place where registered office of the company exists. A reference of the
2
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of “HV Jayaram versus Industrial Credit & Investment Corporation of India Ltd & ors” reported as (2000) 2 SCC 202 has been given where it has been held that criminal case lodged before the Special Court for economic offences should be at the place of registered office of the company from where document is required to be delivered. In the instant case also, allegation of the complainant is regarding non-delivery of Annual Report within a period of seven days. If, at all, petitioners were aggrieved then complaint should have been at the place of registered office.
It is also stated that there was no contravention of section 219 of the Companies Act. The registered letter to seek balance sheet, profit and loss accounts and auditors report of the company was received on 20.1.2000. The non-petitioner was sent required documents vide letter dated 27.1.2000 thus dispatch of required documents was within three days from the date of receipt of copy of the request letter. The non-petitioner yet threatened the company vide his letter dated 8.3.2001. The company was asked to settle the matter out of the court by calling officer of the company at his residence. In fact, non-petitioner is doing and engaged in such practices habitually thus even on merit, no case is made out.
3
Learned counsel for the complainant has however opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for petitioners. He submits that complaint was in the the court having jurisdiction as it is not necessary to file complaint at the place of registered office of the company.
Coming to the facts, he submits that copies of the documents were not given in time thus violation of provisions of section 219 of the Act of 1956 exist. Learned counsel fairly admitted that such cases have been filed by the non-petitioner even in other matters. It is however added that an application was moved by the petitioner to recall the order of cognizance though the court is having no power to review its own order.
I have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
So far as first issue is concerned, it pertains to jurisdiction, however, arguments have been made even on merits thus case has been considered to address merit of the issue i.e. as to whether violation of section 219 of the Act of 1956 is made out or not.
4
This court should not generally interfere in the order
of cognizance but where miscarriage of justice exist, interference can be caused to avoid abuse of process of law. The facts available on record show that the letter was sent by the complainant on 20.1.2000 to call for the balance sheet, profit and loss accounts and auditor's report of the company. Letter was received by the petitioner company on 23.1.2000. The allegations against the petitioners are that documents were not sent within seven days. I find that document Annexure-3 reveals dispatch of required documents within seven days i.e. on 27.1.2000. The fact aforesaid has been mentioned in the petition. The material also shows that similar documents were called for the subsequent financial year 1999-2000 also and they were also sent to the non-petitioner. Letter at Annexure-6 shows that non-petitioner sent letter to the petitioners to settle the matter out of the court to avoid litigation. It is nothing but shows conduct and intention of the non-petitioner complainant.
A reply to the criminal misc. petition has been filed, however, receipt of the documents is denied as it was sent 'under postal certificate' said to be a weak evidence to presume service. The letter at Annexure-6 does not indicate that while receiving report for the year 1999-2000 facts regarding non-receipt of the
5
earlier balance sheet, profit and loss account and auditor's report etc for the year 1998-99 has not been made. Looking to all these facts apart from the fact that matter is quite old as a period of more than 12 years have already passed after taking cognizance which remained under interim order of this court thus trial did not proceed further, I am inclined to accept this petition to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. Therefore, I am not required to deal with the issue of jurisdiction.
In view of discussion made above, criminal misc petition is allowed, order dated 5.1.2001 passed by the Special Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur City, Jaipur so as criminal proceedings in complaint No.650/2001 (5/2000) tiled as Tej Singh versus NK Bajaj & ors in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic offences), Jaipur are quashed and set aside looking to exceptional facts of this case.
(MN BHANDARI), J.
mohit/bnsharma
All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.
(BN Sharma) PS-cum-JW
3 issues framed by the court
Whether violation of section 219 of the Companies Act, 1956 is made out given the documents were dispatched within the stipulated period.
Whether criminal proceedings should be quashed despite the existence of a cognizance order.
Whether the delay in trial and passage of time constitute grounds for quashing the proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
HV Jayaram versus Industrial Credit & Investment Corporation of India Ltd & orsReferred¶13
(2000) 2 SCC 202 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd
Tej Singh
MN BHANDARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
