Partha Ghosh Vs Registrar of Companies (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court held that in view of provisions of section 469 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973, complaint filed after expiry of six months is barred by limitation.
Facts-
The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the complaint bearing CC No.171/3 of 2014 pending in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and order of summoning dated 10.07.2014.
The petitioner is a partner at Price Water House, Chartered Accountants, which is a Statutory Auditor of M/s Religare Finvest Limited. On 10.07.2014, a complaint was filed against the petitioner before the court of the learned ACMM u/s 233 of the Companies Act, 1956, for the commission of an offence under Sections 227(2) and 227(3)(d) of the Companies Act, 1956.
According to the complaint, the MCA directed for inspection of the books of accounts and other records of the Company u/s. 209(A) of the Companies Act 1956 on 16.01.2013. The inspection of the books of accounts of the Company was carried out by the Assistant Director (Inspection) in April 2013.
On 22.05.2013, the inspecting officer asked the petitioner to explain the violations found in the inspection so conducted. The petitioner failed to furnish any reply till the submission of the inspection report.
On 24.06.2013, an inspection report was submitted which was later on forwarded to the MCA by Regional Director. Vide letter dated 21.03.2014, MCA directed the complainant i.e. ROC to file the instant complaint. Accordingly, the complaint was filed on 10.07.2014.
It is mainly alleged that in view of section 468 and 469 of the Cr. P.C., the period of limitation is six months and the complaint is filed after the expiry of six months.
Conclusion-
It has been held that the provisions of Section 470 of the P.C. would not have any application for the reason that the permission of the MCA was not required. Further, it has been held that the time taken by the Regional Director to take the decision to direct the Registrar of Companies to launch prosecution cannot be excluded for the purpose of computing the limitation.
Having carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the decision in the case of Kavi Arora, this court does not find it appropriate to take a different view. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned summoning order dated 10.07.2014 and other consequential proceedings emanating thereto are accordingly quashed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as „P.C.‟) is directed against the complaint bearing CC No.171/3 of 2014 pending in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter, referred to as “ACMM”) and order of summoning dated 10.07.2014.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner challenges the impugned order mainly on the ground that the same is without application of mind; the allegation made in the complaint does not constitute any offence and lastly, in view of Sections 468 and 469 of the Cr.P.C, the period of limitation is six months and the complaint is filed after the expiry of six months.
3. It is further submitted that in the instant case, the offence is punishable only with a fine, therefore, from the date of knowledge of the offence i.e., 24.06.2013, the complaint should have been filed within six months, however, in the instant case, it was filed on 10.07.2014, hence, it is barred by limitation. She has placed reliance on the following decisions:
(i) State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh1,
