2024 (9) TMI 627 - HC - Companies Law

Prayer for the quashing of the order restoring the case that had been dismissed due to non-appearance of the respondent - diversion of funds - allegation is that accused company had not utilised the IPO proceeds of 1540.56 Lakhs for the purposes stated in the prospectus - Sections 447/448 of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT - The issue raised in the present petition is no longer re integra and, in fact, stands settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.S. Gauraya 1986 (4) TMI 362 - SUPREME COURT . In the said judgment, the Supreme Court, in answering the question as to Whether a Subordinate Criminal Court has any inherent jurisdiction outside the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code? , and in similar fact situation where the Complaint dismissed due to the absence of the Complainant therein has been restored by the learned Magistrate, held that ' Filing of a second complaint is not the same thing as reviving a dismissed complaint after recalling the earlier order of dismissal. The Criminal Procedure Code does not contain any provision enabling the criminal court to exercise such an inherent power.' In view of the above settled position in law, the order passed by the learned Special Judge was without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. The Order dated 13.08.2019 is set aside as having been passed by the learned Special Judge without jurisdiction. Consequently, the order dated 16.04.2022 passed by learned Special Judge and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, are set aside - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Petition to quash order restoring dismissed case and issuing summons under Companies Act.

Analysis:
The petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeks to quash the order restoring a dismissed case and issuing summons under the Companies Act. The respondent alleged misuse of IPO proceeds by the accused company. The case was dismissed on multiple occasions due to non-appearance of the complainant. The respondent later sought restoration, which was granted by the Special Judge. Subsequently, the petitioners challenged the order issuing summons.

The senior counsel for the petitioners argued that the Special Judge exceeded jurisdiction by restoring the dismissed case. Citing precedent, he contended that the Cr.P.C. does not allow for such restoration. He relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Maj. Gen. A.S Gauraya v. S.N. Thakur, emphasizing limitations under Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. and the inability to revive dismissed complaints.

In contrast, the counsel for the respondent justified the restoration, pointing out the delayed appointment of counsel by the Ministry of Law and Justice. She argued that since the dismissal was not on merit, the Special Judge had the authority to restore the case. She cited judgments from the Karnataka and Allahabad High Courts to support her stance.

The High Court analyzed the arguments and referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in A.S. Gauraya, which clarified that a magistrate cannot revive a dismissed complaint without specific provisions in the Cr.P.C. The court emphasized that the dismissal of a complaint for non-appearance is final, and inherent powers cannot be invoked for revival. The High Court set aside the order restoring the case and issuing summons, citing lack of jurisdiction.

Additionally, the court distinguished the Allahabad High Court's judgment, highlighting the limited inherent powers of subordinate courts under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The final decision nullified the orders in question but allowed the respondent to pursue legal avenues for restoration in compliance with the law.