2023 (5) TMI 250 - HC - Companies Law

Illegal possession of the Office cum-guest house since the year 1987 - contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intentions for the purposes of harassment - Section 452 of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT - From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the highly disputed question of facts, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure PVT Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918, R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, 2021 (4) TMI 1244 - SUPREME COURT , State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1990 (11) TMI 386 - SUPREME COURT , State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1991 (4) TMI 365 - SUPREME COURT , lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another 2004 (11) TMI 519 - SUPREME COURT , State of M.P. Vs Awadh Kishore Gupta and others 2003 (11) TMI 584 - SUPREME COURT , and Dr. Monica Kumar and Another Vs State of UP and Others, 2008 (5) TMI 687 - SUPREME COURT . The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C. or 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be, before the court below and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court. The application has no force and is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the quashing of a summoning order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. arising from a complaint under Section 452 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Summary:
The applicant filed an application to quash the summoning order and consequential proceedings related to a complaint under Section 452 of the Companies Act, 2013. The complaint alleged illegal possession of an Office cum-guest house since 1987. The dispute arose from a split within the Modi Family, leading to division of business shares/assets/properties between Group A and Group B. A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in 1989 detailed the division, stating that possession of properties was the relevant consideration, not ownership or tenancy. The applicant argued that the summoning order was mechanical and failed to consider civil cases pending in Civil Court regarding the MoU interpretation. The applicant contended that the opposite party was not the owner of the premises and the prosecution was malicious.

On the other hand, the complainant argued that the applicant was appointed as President of the Company and the company leased land for construction of an Office cum Guest House. The complainant asserted that the impugned order was passed after considering all facts and should not be scuttled at the summoning stage. The court found that at this stage, a prima facie case existed, and disputed facts should be addressed during trial. The judgment cited legal precedents to support the decision that disputed defenses of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. The prayer for quashing the proceedings and summoning order was refused, and the application was dismissed.