9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed w.e.f. 19.04.1995 and 05.05.1998. Much thereafter, alleged defaults have been committed. Considering the submission and going through the documents appended thereto as well as the reply filed by the respondent, it appears that petitioners made out their case for interference. Once, t hey resigned in the years 1995 and 1998, then they cannot be fastened with any liability for a period of 2014. Petition allowed. - Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 6965 of 2023, 6970 of 2023, 6975 of 2023, 6977 of 2023, 6982 of 2023 - - - Dated:- 13-3-2023 - Hon'ble Shri Justice Anand Pathak For the Petitioners : Shri Sameer Kumar Shrivastava - Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Praveen Kumar Newaskar - Deputy Solicitor General ORDER Regard being had to the similitude of the controversy, instant petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are heard analogously and are decided by this common order. For convenience's sake, facts as narrated in M.Cr.C.No.6965/2023 are taken into consideration. 2. A tabular representation of different petitions with alleged violation by petitioner and their brief particulars is given for ready reference:- Sr.No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anies Act, 2013. 5. Precisely stated facts of the case as represented in MCRC No.6965/2023 are that the petitioners were earlier one of the Directors of M/s. Sterling Kalks Sand Bricks Limited (hereinafter referred as Company) between the period 30th September, 1992 to 19.04.1995 and 05.05.1998. On 19.04.1995 and 05.05.1998, petitioners resigned and no longer continued to remain as Directors of the Company thereafter. 6. In the year 2015, complaint was filed by respondent with the allegations that the Company and its Directors including the present petitioners were guilty of offence as contained in Section 12 (1) of the Companies Act, 2013. It was the allegation that Company is not having registered office address capable of receiving communications. Therefore, company and its Directors were guilty of such non-compliance. 7. Since the petitioner No.1 Avtar Singh Narang and the petitioner No.2 Vijay Verma resigned as Directors of the Company w.e.f. 19.04.1995 and 05.05.1998 respectively, thereafter, when petitioners as accused (in summon's case) appeared before the Trial Court. It was the contention of petitioners that they resigned in the year 1995 and 1998 as re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever, he prayed for dismissal of the petitions. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents appended thereto. 11. This is a case where admittedly petitioners worked as Directors of the Company between the period 30th September, 1992 till 19.04.1995 and 05.05.1998 and then resigned. In 2015, under the mistaken belief, complaint was filed against present petitioners also for alleged non-compliance of Section 12 of Act, 2013 for which penalty is provided under Section 12 (8) of the Act, 2013. For ready reference, Section 12 (8) of the Act is reproduced as under:- If any default is made in complying with the requirements of this section, the company and every officer who is in default shall be liable to a penalty of one thousand rupees for every day during which the default continues but not exceeding one lakh rupees. 12. Admittedly, alleged non-compliance is for the period 2014 where some defaults on the part of the Company are made. Admittedly, petitioners resigned w.e.f. 19.04.1995 and 05.05.1998. Much thereafter, alleged defaults have been committed. 13. In year 2004, in the matter of directions under Section 11 read-with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no case is made out and case of the petitioner already considered by the concerned authority i.e. S.E.B.I. and given findings in favour of the petitioner twice. 17. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, seven parameters were prescribed under which court can interfere for resorting to extraordinary jurisdiction. Here contingency No.5 is attracted and same is reproduced as under:- Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 18. In the case of Rajiv Thapar and others Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor reported in ( 2013) 3 SCC 330 , the Apex Court reiterated the scope of power vested under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in following words:- 30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:- (i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
