9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 1716 - HC - Companies LawAllegation of cheating and fraud levelled against petitioner - Whether the expression other legal proceedings in Section 446 of the Companies Act would include Criminal Proceedings and FIR filed in Delhi can be quashed or not? - Urged by Appellant that since the matters before DRT had been settled and all the amount was paid, it would be an abuse of the process of Court and FIR be quashed - Revenue contends that Court has no jurisdiction to quash the FIR since the FIR is registered in Delhi and One time settlement does not refer to criminal proceedings; no approval given by RBI. Held That - Section 446 does not prohibit proceedings being taken by company against any directors or officers or other servants of company; other legal proceedings used in Section 446(1) do not include criminal proceedings - Court has no jurisdiction to transfer a criminal case from one Court to another and petitioners could not have approached this High Court for quashing - Decision made in case of Pennar Paterson Ltd. Vs. Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd. 2008 (4) TMI 508 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA followed - Decided in favour of Respondent
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to quash an FIR registered in Delhi. 2. Interpretation of "other legal proceedings" under Section 446 of the Companies Act. 3. Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed due to the settlement of civil liabilities. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to Quash an FIR Registered in Delhi: The primary question was whether the High Court of Punjab and Haryana had the jurisdiction to quash an FIR registered in Delhi. The petitioners argued that since the winding-up proceedings of the company were taken up by this Court, it should have jurisdiction. However, the respondents contended that the criminal proceedings were initiated in Delhi, and thus, only the Delhi courts had jurisdiction. The Court concluded that the allegations of cheating and fraud were related to the FIR registered in Delhi, and the Delhi Court had taken cognizance of the matter. Consequently, the petitioners could not approach the Punjab and Haryana High Court for quashing the FIR. The petition was dismissed on the grounds of being not maintainable. 2. Interpretation of "Other Legal Proceedings" under Section 446 of the Companies Act: The Court examined whether the term "other legal proceedings" in Section 446(1) of the Companies Act included criminal proceedings. The Court referred to precedents, including *Pennar Paterson Ltd. Vs. Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd.*, which clarified that "other legal proceedings" did not encompass criminal proceedings. The objective of Section 446 was to protect the assets of the company and avoid expensive litigation, not to cover criminal misconduct by the company's directors. The Court concluded that criminal proceedings are not included in the term "other legal proceedings" under Section 446. 3. Whether Criminal Proceedings Can Be Quashed Due to the Settlement of Civil Liabilities: The petitioners argued that since they had settled all dues with the Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI) and other creditors, the FIR should be quashed to prevent misuse of judicial time. They cited the one-time settlement and the withdrawal of recovery certificates by SIDBI as evidence of resolved disputes. However, the respondents, including the CBI and SIDBI, maintained that the settlement of civil liabilities did not extinguish criminal liability. The Court agreed with this view, stating that the criminal proceedings could not be quashed merely because the civil liabilities were settled. The Court emphasized that the criminal liability of the directors could not be absolved through civil settlements, and the FIR could not be quashed on these grounds. Conclusion: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the petition, ruling that it did not have jurisdiction to quash an FIR registered in Delhi. The Court also clarified that "other legal proceedings" under Section 446 of the Companies Act did not include criminal proceedings, and the settlement of civil liabilities did not nullify criminal liability. The petition was found to be not maintainable and was dismissed accordingly.
|
