2020 (10) TMI 1072 - HC - Companies Law

Summon Order - applicants argued that the impugned summoning order is a proforma order passed over printed proforma with no application of judicial mind - HELD THAT - Whatever is in other cases is with regard to facts involved in those cases and in criminal case parity of this kind may not be claimed. Rather what is ground for filing this application and where is abuse of process of law has to be mentioned for having indulgence of this court. Hence under above pretext, this file reveals that this complaint was filed by Registrar of Companies u/s 211(3A)(3C) of the Companies Act, 1956 read with AS-15 and AS-13 against Gopal Das Bansal and three others with this contention that Mammon Concast was incorporated as Private Limited on 24.5.2010 under Companies Act having its registered office at 144, Kaveri Kunj, Phase II, Kamla Nagar, Agra. As per memorandum of Companies Registration Book Gopal Das Bansal, Shashank Goyal, Sagar Bansal and Anup Kumar Goyal are Directors of this Company. Hence they are responsible for the act of Company, as per the provisions of Section 211(3A)(3C) of the Companies Act, 1956, and under section 5 of the Companies Act. They will be treated as officers in default. A Judicial Magistrate is not required to pass order on the analytical analysis of fact and evidence at the stage of passing order u/s 204 Cr.P.C. - The mere requirement is that the Magistrate has to see as to whether prima-facie case is there to proceed further or not. In the present case, complaint was filed by Registrar of Companies with accusations and documentary evidence in support of it, which were Inspection report submitted by the office of Regional Director (NR), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi. Hence there was sufficient prima-facie case to proceed further and pass summoning order. This was not under abuse of process of law. Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of summoning order dated 18.2.2019 passed by Special C.J.M., Agra.
2. Allegation of abuse of process of law due to lack of judicial mind in passing the summoning order.
3. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants.
4. Arguments regarding the summoning order being a proforma order without judicial scrutiny.
5. Accusations under Section 211(3A)(3C) of the Companies Act, 1956 against the Directors of the Company.
6. Prima facie case requirement for passing a summoning order under Section 204 Cr.P.C.
7. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate to proceed based on documentary evidence and inspection reports.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash a summoning order dated 18.2.2019 passed by the Special C.J.M., Agra, in a Complaint Case involving allegations under Section 211(3A)(3C) of the Companies Act, 1956. The applicants contended that the summoning order was a proforma order lacking judicial scrutiny, amounting to an abuse of process of law. The State vehemently opposed these arguments. The Court noted that the complaint was filed by the Registrar of Companies based on documentary evidence and inspection reports, alleging violations by the Directors of the Company. The Magistrate, after considering the evidence, took cognizance and passed the summoning order, which was not a proforma order but a typed order summoning the accused for the alleged offences.

The Court emphasized that at the stage of passing the summoning order under Section 204 Cr.P.C., a Magistrate is not required to conduct an analytical analysis of facts and evidence. The Court cited the decision in Fiona Shrikande Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2014 SC 957, stating that the Magistrate needs to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists to proceed further. In this case, the complaint was supported by documentary evidence and inspection reports, providing sufficient grounds for the Magistrate to pass the summoning order. The Court concluded that there was no abuse of process of law in this instance and dismissed the application accordingly.

In summary, the judgment highlights the importance of prima facie evidence in passing summoning orders by Magistrates and emphasizes that the presence of documentary evidence and inspection reports can establish a sufficient basis for proceeding with criminal complaints under the Companies Act, 1956.