2022 (6) TMI 315 - HC - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Seeking direction to the first respondent to register the complaint filed by the petitioner against the third respondent for committing various offences under Indian Penal Code - Settlement of amount between banks without issuing due certificates - pecuniary advantage received from the stakeholders for settling their amount - sale of Stock Materials and container at lower price - non-production of documents relating to the sale of scrap materials - HELD THAT - From the consideration of materials produced and the submission of the parties, the third respondent appears to have acted as per the terms and conditions imposed in the order dated 23.12.2020. If at all the petitioner has any grievance, is open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum as provided under Section 217 and 218 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. There is no prima-facie case made out to register a criminal complaint against the third respondent. This Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Petition seeking direction to register a complaint against the third respondent for various offenses under the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis:
The petitioner alleged that the third respondent did not accept no due certificates from banks, received pecuniary advantage from stakeholders, and sold stock materials at a low price without providing requested documents. A complaint was filed on 24.12.2021, but no FIR was registered, leading to this petition.

The Special Public Prosecutor stated that the complaint was forwarded to HDFC Bank for action and that C.B.I. did not investigate the matter. The second respondent clarified that no relief was sought against them and highlighted the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code's provisions for complaints against Insolvency Professionals.

The third respondent, appointed as Liquidator, explained the legal process followed for appointment and actions taken. The NCLT confirmed the third respondent as Resolution Professional for a corporate debtor, and the petitioner, a suspended Director, did not cooperate in preparing a resolution plan. The third respondent appointed valuers to assess property values and addressed encumbrances created by the petitioner.

Regarding specific allegations, the third respondent clarified that banks did not participate in meetings, and shareholders did not accuse the third respondent of receiving illegal gratification. The judgment concluded that the third respondent acted within legal parameters set in the order dated 23.12.2020. The court found no prima facie case for a criminal complaint, advising the petitioner to seek redressal through appropriate channels under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

In light of the submissions and evidence, the court dismissed the Criminal Original Petition, emphasizing that the petitioner could pursue grievances through the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code's prescribed mechanisms.