Delhi High Court - Orders
Creative Wares Ltd vs Scj Plastics Ltd on 13 February, 2023
Author: Subramonium Prasad
Bench: Subramonium Prasad
$~R5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 391/2010
CREATIVE WARES LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: None
versus
SCJ PLASTICS LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Pankaj Chaudhary, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
ORDER
% 13.02.2023
1. The instant petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the summoning Order dated 12.05.2009 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts.
2. It is stated by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent that accused No.1 is the Company managed by accused No.2/Managing Director. It is further stated by learned Counsel for the Respondent that charges have been framed only against accused No.2, Managing Director and not against the accused No.1/company. He states that the instant petition has been filed only by the company and in view of the fact that no charges have been framed against the accused company which is the sole Petitioner herein, the petition has become infructuous. He has handed over a copy of the Order dated 04.09.2018 passed by the learned MM-02, Saket Court. The relevant portion of the said Order reads as under:
"22. It is pertinent to state in here that Sh. Gaurav, Record Officer and CPIO in ROC, West Bengal who Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR CRL.M.C. 391/2010 Page 1 of 3 Signing Date:15.02.2023 18:26:48 deposed as CW-2 have stated that the accused company was strike down by Registrar of company by exercising its suo moto power. Copy of gazette qua the same is also placed on record perusal of which reveals that the registrars of companies has suo moto struck off the name of accused no. 1 company vide exercising its power u/s 560(5) of Companies Act 1956. Considering the fact that the accused no. 1 company has been struck off and stand dissolve, the present complaint against the accused no.1 company stands dismissed.
23. Considering the law and facts stated above, prima face it appears that the accused no. 2 on behalf of accused no. 1 had committed cheating upon the complainant by concealing the fact that accused no. 1 is suffering from loss and registered with BIFR, thereby using the complainant to keep on supply of goods.
24. Accordingly accused no. 2 be charged u/s 420 IPC. It is further pertinent to state in here that Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 09.04.2013 has exempted the personal appearance of accused no. 2 before the trial court. As passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi is being reproduced as under:
Interim order dt. 8th February 2010, exempting petitioner from his personal appearance before the Trial Court subject to his counsel appearing and not seeking adjournment, is made absolute.
25. However considering the fact that accused no. 2 has been charged us 420 IPC he is directed to appear before the court for the purpose of framing of charge."
3. In view of the above, nothing survives in the instant petition. The Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR CRL.M.C. 391/2010 Page 2 of 3 Signing Date:15.02.2023 18:26:48 petition is disposed of as having become infructuous, along with pending application(s), if any.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J FEBRUARY 13, 2023 S. Zakir Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR CRL.M.C. 391/2010 Page 3 of 3 Signing Date:15.02.2023 18:26:48