2019 (6) TMI 1334 - HC - Companies Law

Offence alleged under Sections 454(5) and 454(5A) of the Companies Act, 1956 - Framing of charge - maintainability of petition - HELD THAT - Hon ble Supreme Court in SUBRAMANIUM SETHURAMAN VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ANR. 2004 (9) TMI 605 - SUPREME COURT was not directly considering the scope of Section 251 of the Cr.P.C. in the context of a summons case, and this conclusion would explain the observation in paragraph-20 of the judgment that in an appropriate case, the Court would discharge the accused as per Section 239 of the Code. The petition for discharge is not maintainable also under Section 245(2) of the Cr.P.C., which falls under Chapter XIX thereof and deals with trial of warrant cases - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of discharge petition under Section 245(2) and Section 251 of the Cr.P.C.
2. Interpretation of provisions in Chapter XX of the Cr.P.C. regarding discharge petitions.
3. Comparison of relevant case laws to determine the validity of the discharge petition.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a discharge petition under Section 245(2) of the Cr.P.C. in a case related to offences under Sections 454(5) and 454(5A) of the Companies Act, 1956. The Official Liquidator raised objections to the maintainability of the discharge petition under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C., contending that Chapter XX of the Cr.P.C. dealing with summons cases does not provide for the framing of charges or consideration of discharge petitions. The Court referred to a Madras High Court decision and emphasized the procedural requirements under Sections 251, 254, and 255(1) of the Cr.P.C., highlighting that discharge petitions are not contemplated under these provisions.

2. The petitioner cited a Supreme Court decision emphasizing the duty of the trial court to consider evidence to determine if the commission of an offence is disclosed for the purpose of discharge under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C. Additionally, the petitioner relied on Delhi High Court judgments to support the maintainability of discharge petitions in summons cases. However, the Official Liquidator distinguished the cases and argued that the Supreme Court had set aside one of the Delhi High Court judgments, implying that earlier decisions might be impliedly overruled. The Court carefully considered these arguments.

3. The Court referred to a Supreme Court decision in a warrant case and a previous Supreme Court ruling in a Negotiable Instruments Act case to establish that discharge petitions are not maintainable in summons cases under Chapter XX of the Cr.P.C. The Court highlighted the absence of a provision for discharge in summons cases and concluded that the petitioner's reliance on previous judgments was misplaced. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the discharge petition, affirming that it was not maintainable under Section 245(2) or Section 251 of the Cr.P.C. and aligning with the precedent set by the Supreme Court decisions.