9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s have also challenged the respective summoning orders in the aforesaid complaints. 3. The brief facts of the cases are that Respondent No. 2 (the complainant company), which is a manufacturer and distributor of various brands of beer, had entered into a Distribution Agreement dated 01.04.2016 with Petitioner No. 1 (the accused firm) whereby Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as the exclusive distributor for Respondent No. 2 in Puducherry. It is alleged that a sum of Rs. 1,07,93,057.81/- was due to be paid by Petitioner No. 1 against purchase of beer. In furtherance of the same, multiple cheques were issued on behalf of Petitioner No. 1 to the complainant company which were returned unpaid with remarks- "ACCOUNT CLOSED". Petitioner No. 2 is the partner of Petitioner No. 1 firm and the authorised signatory of the cheques in question. 4. Thereafter, the name of the complainant company was changed from Sab Miller India Ltd. to M/s. Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd. and fresh certificate of incorporation pursuant to change of name was issued by the Office of the Registrar of Companies on 28.05.2018. 5. Subsequently, the subject complaints were filed in the month of June, 2018 in the old n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Companies Act, 1956 clearly provides that the legal proceedings commenced by the company in its former name may be continued by its new name. He submitted that in the absence of any new provision to the contrary in Companies Act, 2013, the same rationale ought to apply in the present case as well. 15. He submitted that even otherwise, no prejudice would be caused by a mere change of name to the petitioners. ANALYSIS 16. At the outset, it is relevant to note that the inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 of the CrPC ought to be exercised sparingly especially when the matter is at the stage of issuance of summons as the same has the effect of scuttling the proceedings without the parties having an opportunity to adduce the relevant evidence. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. State (NCT of Delhi) : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 513, adverting to a catena of judgments, had underscored the parameters for exercising inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings at the stage of the summoning order. The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced hereunder: "14. The parameters for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allegations made in the complaint. 17. The consequences of scuttling the criminal process at a pre-trial stage can be grave and irreparable. Quashing proceedings at preliminary stages will result in finality without the parties having had an opportunity to adduce evidence and the consequence then is that the proper forum i.e., the trial Court is ousted from weighing the material evidence. If this is allowed, the accused may be given an un-merited advantage in the criminal process. Also because of the legal presumption, when the cheque and the signature are not disputed by the appellant, the balance of convenience at this stage is in favour of the complainant/prosecution, as the accused will have due opportunity to adduce defence evidence during the trial, to rebut the presumption. 18. Situated thus, to non-suit the complainant, at the stage of the summoning order, when the factual controversy is yet to be canvassed and considered by the trial court will not in our opinion be judicious. Based upon a prima facie impression, an element of criminality cannot entirely be ruled out here subject to the determination by the trial Court. Therefore, when the proceedings are at a nascent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aken of the complaint before the disposal of amendment application. Firstly, the Magistrate was yet to apply the judicial mind to the contents of the complaint and had not taken cognizance of the matter. Secondly, since summons was yet to be ordered to be issued to the accused, no prejudice would be caused to the accused. Thirdly, the amendment did not change the original nature of the complaint being one for defamation. Fourthly, the publication of poem Khalnayakaru being in the nature of subsequent event created a new cause of action in favour of the respondent which could have been prosecuted by the respondent by filing a separate complaint and therefore, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the trial court allowed the amendment application. Considering these factors which weighed in the mind of the courts below, in our view, the High Court rightly declined to interfere with the order passed by the Magistrate allowing the amendment application and the impugned order does not suffer from any serious infirmity warranting interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution." (emphasis supplied) 22. The petitioners have highlighted that it was held in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... make the controlling company of the industrial unit figure as the accused concerned in the complaint. All that has to be done is the making of a formal application for amendment by the appellant for leave to amend by substituting the name of Modi Industries Limited, the company owning the industrial unit, in place of Modi Distillery. ... Furthermore, the legal infirmity is of such a nature which could be easily cured.' 19. What is discernible from U.P. Pollution Control Board case [(1987) 3 SCC 684 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 632] is that an easily curable legal infirmity could be cured by means of a formal application for amendment. If the amendment sought to be made relates to a simple infirmity which is curable by means of a formal amendment and by allowing such amendment, no prejudice could be caused to the other side, notwithstanding the fact that there is no enabling provision in the Code for entertaining such amendment, the court may permit such an amendment to be made. On the contrary, if the amendment sought to be made in the complaint does not relate either to a curable infirmity or the same cannot be corrected by a formal amendment or if there is likelihood of prejudice to the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
