9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1777X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 36908 of 2018, CRM-M No. 36961 of 2018, CRM-M No. 36906 of 2018, CRM-M No. 36912 of 2018, CRM-M No. 30924 of 2018, CRM-M No. 30975 of 2018, CRM-M No. 30977 of 2018, CRM-M No. 31010 of 2018, CRM-M No. 31011 of 2018, CRM-M No. 31013 of 2018, CRM-M No. 31014 of 2018, CRM-M No. 31023 of 2018, CRM-M No. 31025 of 2018, CRM-M No. 31026 of 2018, CRM-M No. 31028 of 2018, CRM-M No. 31034 of 2018, CRM-M No. 31041 of 2018, CRM-M No. 31048 of 2018, CRM-M No. 9868 of 2017, CRM-M No. 46695 of 2017, CRM-M No. 40145 of 2018, CRM-M No. 40148 of 2018, CRM-M No. 40161 of 2018, CRM-M No. 40171 of 2018, CRM-M No. 40173 of 2018, CRM-M No. 40174 of 2018, CRM-M No. 40175 of 2018, CRM-M No. 40176 of 2018, CRM-M No. 40205 of 2018, CRM-M No. 40206 of 2018, CRM-M No. 40207 of 2018, CRM-M No. 40208 of 2018, CRM-M No. 40223 of 2018, CRM-M No. 40224 of 2018, CRM-M No. 40257 of 2018, CRM-M No. 40260 of 2018, CRM-M No. 40262 of 2018, CRM-M No. 40264 of 2018, CRM-M No. 40265 of 2018, CRM-M No. 40274 of 2018, CRM-M No. 40279 of 2018, CRM-M No. 40280 of 2018, CRM-M No. 40281 of 2018, CRM-M No. 40297 of 2018, CRM-M No. 40306 of 2018, CRM-M No. 40307 of 2018, CRM-M No. 40308 of 2018, CRM-M No. 40310 of 2018, CRM-M No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P-2 on record. The same has been drawn by the authorized signatory on behalf of Amira Pure Food Private Limited. 3. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the complaint and summoning order on the ground that the petitioner ceased to be a Director of the Company w.e.f. 10.02.2006. It has been argued that this fact is contained in Form No. 32 dated 23.02.2006, submitted to the Department of Company Affairs. It further finds corroboration in the Annual Return of the Company (annexed as Annexure P-5), wherein, in the list of Director/Manager/Secretary, it is recorded that the petitioner ceased to be a Director w.e.f. 10.02.2006. The said documents are 'public documents' within the meaning of the term according to section 74(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The cheque in dispute is dated 26.04.2017. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner was not a Director in the Company on the date of issuance of cheque. It has further been argued that the petitioner cannot ever be made liable as a "person in charge of the affairs of the company or responsible to it for its business" as no specific allegation has been made against him in the complai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that the present petition has been filed for quashing of the complaint as well as the summoning order. In exercise of revisional power, Court of Sessions or the High Court can summon the record of the case for examining the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order and also for the purpose of examining the regularity of proceedings of the inferior Court. It is not vested with the power of quashing a criminal complaint. This power is available to the High Court alone under Section 482 Cr.P.C., whereunder the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers, can pass orders to prevent abuse of process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. Thus, the prayer made in this petition could not have been granted by the revisional Court and, therefore, it can not be said that the petitioner had an alternative remedy before the Court of Sessions in the first instance. The argument is, thus, rejected. 6. The allegation against the petitioner, the Chairman and Directors of the Company, is as follows:- xxx xxx xxx 2. That accused above notices are Chairman and Directors of the Company namely Amira Pure Foods Private Limited vill Harsru Gadi 21 Mile Stone Pat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt from the Company itself. Such a person may be somebody other than a 'Director' so long as he is an officer of the Company. However, an Ex-officio Director is not liable. Even a Director may prove his innocence during trial. The question regarding innocence of a Director or culpability of an officer of the Company, who is not a Director is a matter of evidence. 9. The question, therefore, is regarding the liability of a person who admittedly ceased to be a Director w.e.f. 10.02.2006 and against whom no specific averment has been made in the complaint regarding the manner in which he was in-charge of and responsible to the Company for conduct of its business. In the paragraph of the complaint reproduced hereinabove, it is only mentioned that the petitioner alongwith other Directors was incharge of and responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business, which is a mere reproduction of the words of Section 141 of the Act. 10. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that it is settled law that before a summoning order is issued by the trial Court, it should feel prima facie satisfied that the persons being summoned have committed an offence. In the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion in S.M.S. Pharmaceutical Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla, 2005 (4) RCR (Criminal) 141 and various other cases decided by two Judge Benches and held that documents like Form No. 32, are in the nature of public documents and are beyond suspicion and can be looked into at the prima facie stage and the criminal proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the Act can be quashed thereupon. The judgment of the High Court was, thus, set aside. 12. In Anita Malhotra (supra), the appellant before the High Court had resigned from the Directorship of the accused-Company w.e.f. 31.08.1999 and this information was submitted to the Registrar of the Companies through statutory Form No. 32. Notice under Section 138 of the Act, was dated 10.12.2004, which was replied to by her. She was summoned by the trial Court. The petition filed for quashing of the summoning order and the complaint was rejected by the High Court. The Supreme Court placed reliance upon Harshendra Kumar D. (supra) and other cases and held that Form No. 32 and annual returns filed by Companies were public documents in terms of Section 74(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and such documents can be looked into for the purposes of quashing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to expect the complainant to elaborate thereupon. The only requirement of law is that an averment should be made in terms of the language of Section 141(1) of the Act. The Supreme Court held that in a situation as existing in the facts of this case, the High Court should have quashed the complaint only after the concerned Director provided sterling evidence that he was infact not responsible for conduct of business of the Company. Thus, the exposition of law, that details regarding the manner in which a person, being a Director was responsible for the conduct of its affairs, has not been declared bad. Further, in this case, the concerned Director had not resigned. 18. In Standard Chartered Bank (supra) the accused-Company issued cheques for repayment of loan extended by a Bank, which were dishonored. The trial Court summoned the accused persons which was challenged by way of revision but was dismissed. Consequently the said orders was challenged before the High Court. The petition filed by two of the accused Directors, was allowed on the ground that no specific assertion regarding the role of the said Directors, had been made in the complaint. In this backdrop, the Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person, the trial Court/Magistrate must be satisfied on the basis of material produced before it that prima facie the accused persons have committed an offence. The material being referred to by the complainant by way of its reply can not be looked into at this stage because the same has not been referred to or relied upon in the complaint. CRM-M-12745-2018 21. This case is being taken up separately as learned counsel representing the complainant has submitted that specific averments regarding the manner in which the petitioner was responsible for conducting the business of the Company have been made in the complaint. 22. The complaint is on record as Annexure P-1. The petitioner has been arrayed as accused No. 3. A perusal thereof does not support the contention of the learned counsel. 23. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the complainant has drawn my attention to the notice issued under Section 138 of the Act, which is Annexure P-6 on the record. He submits that the said notice is a part of the complaint and necessary averments have been made therein. Thus, there is no error in the order of summoning. 24. The petitioner is notice No. 3. The averment made regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
