9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 560X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is petition under section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) is for quashing of Company Case No. 122/2005 titled Registrar of Companies v. Rishi Electronic Ltd. under section 234(4)( a ) read with section 234(3A) of the Companies Act, 1956 ( Act ) pending in the court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), New Delhi. 2. The aforementioned criminal complaint, filed in 2005 stated that Rishi Electronics Limited (REL) is a public limited company registered with the Registrar of Companies (RoC). The last Annual Return of REL was filed on 29-9-2001. While REL has been made accused No. l in the criminal complaint, accused Nos. 2 to 4 are Harbans Lal, Ravinder Kumar Rishi and Smt. Nirmala Rishi respectively. It is stated in the aforementioned criminal complaint that the said accused Nos. 2 to 4 are directors/officers of REL in terms of the Annual Return dated 29-9-2001 and the latest Form 32. The RoC received a complaint dated 10-10-2002 from one Gaurav Rishi alleging that some of the directors of REL have been trying to illegally sell the shareholding of REL. A show-cause notice dated 20-11-2002 was accordingly issued by the RoC to REL seeking certain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the RoC was consequent to a complaint made to it by Gaurav Rishi who did not have any locus vis-a-vis REL. Moreover, the said complaint had failed to disclose that there was previous litigation involving Smt. Sushma Rishi, the mother of Gaurav Rishi, and the petitioners. The civil suit filed in this Court involving the parties came to be settled and the settlement was recorded by this Court on 28-3-2000. Pursuant to the said settlement, Ravinder Kumar Rishi, who is the petitioner No. 2 in the present petition, paid a sum of Rs. 1.25 crores to Smt. Sushma Rishi and Rs. 25 lakhs each to her children Gaurav Rishi and Gauri Rishi. It is submitted that the said settlement was binding on both the parties. However, Dr. J.C. Rishi, father of petitioner No. 2 and husband of petitioner No. 3, expired on 29-7-2002. Thereafter, Gaurav Rishi attained majority. Smt. Sushma Rishi then used that opportunity to extract further money from the petitioners. It is stated that all of these facts were brought to the notice of the RoC in the reply dated 9-12-2002 in response to the letter dated 20-11-2002 written by the RoC to it. It was specifically pointed out in the reply that Gaurav Rishi did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und 4-2-2003, you desired to be furnished with certified copies of all the documents which are required to be produced for inspection. In this connection, it may not be out of place to mention that copies of Annual Returns are already filed in your office. Therefore, in all probability, you may depend upon those documents available in the document file. In the circumstances, it may not be required to furnish certified copies of the Annual Returns as are available." 7. Annexed to the aforementioned reply was a copy of a complaint given to the police on 24-3-2003 regarding certain records of REL including share certificates and share transfer forms being missing from the office of REL. A letter dated 13-3-2003 written by J.K. Rishi to the Directors of REL stating that "since 1995, neither my wife Sushma Rishi nor Gaurav Rishi hold any shares in Rishi Electronics Ltd." has also been placed on record. 8. In the reply filed to this petition, there is no denial at all by the RoC of the receipt of the aforementioned numerous replies given by REL to the various show-cause notices and letters written by it to REL. Surprisingly, the stand taken by the RoC is that of denial for want o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 234(3A) of the Companies Act, 1956 was issued to the company and its officers in default vide this office letter No. STA/Comp/2548/6622 to 26 dated 23-12-2002 by Shri Saud Ahmad, Asstt. RoC to produce certain statutory registers and other relevant records. However, they have failed to produce the records as called for vide show-cause notice dated 23-12-2002 making themselves liable for prosecution under section 234(4)( a ) of the Companies Act, 1956. Copy of the show-cause notice is annexed as Annexure-4 to the complaint." 12. This Court is unable to appreciate the vagueness with which the aforementioned averments have been made. The replies sent by REL have been collectively annexed to the complaint without any reference whatsoever to their contents. The replies in fact refer to the previous litigation between Sushma Rishi, on one hand, acting on her behalf and on behalf of her children Gaurav Rishi and Gauri Rishi, and the petitioners herein on the other hand. They refer to the settlement arrived at in the civil litigation. They enclose the letter written by the father of Gaurav Rishi and the husband of Sushma Rishi to REL specifically stating that neither Sushma R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
