Allahabad High Court
Shri Gopal Das Bansal And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 October, 2020
Author: Ram Krishna Gautam
Bench: Ram Krishna Gautam
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 84 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13734 of 2020 Applicant :- Shri Gopal Das Bansal And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kiran Tiwari,Mahesh Chandra Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. representing the State. Perused the records.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants Shri Gopal Das Bansal and three others against State of U.P. and another with prayer to quash summoning order dated 18.2.2019 passed by Special C.J.M., Agra, as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 18 of 2019, styled as Registrar of Companies (R.O.C.) Vs. Gopal Das Bansal and others, under Section 211(3A)(3C), P.S. Kamla Nagar, district , pending in court of Special C.J.M., Agra.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the impugned summoning order is a proforma order passed over printed proforma with no application of judicial mind. Thus, it is under abuse of process of law. Likewise in other cases, this court has entertained and issued notices. Hence this application with above prayer.
4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed.
5. Whatever is in other cases is with regard to facts involved in those cases and in criminal case parity of this kind may not be claimed. Rather what is ground for filing this application and where is abuse of process of law has to be mentioned for having indulgence of this court. Hence under above pretext, this file reveals that this complaint was filed by Registrar of Companies u/s 211(3A)(3C) of the Companies Act, 1956 read with AS-15 and AS-13 against Gopal Das Bansal and three others with this contention that Mammon Concast was incorporated as Private Limited on 24.5.2010 under Companies Act having its registered office at 144, Kaveri Kunj, Phase II, Kamla Nagar, Agra. As per memorandum of Companies Registration Book Gopal Das Bansal, Shashank Goyal, Sagar Bansal and Anup Kumar Goyal are Directors of this Company. Hence they are responsible for the act of Company, as per the provisions of Section 211(3A)(3C) of the Companies Act, 1956, and under section 5 of the Companies Act. They will be treated as officers in default. An inspection of books of accounts and other records of the Company was conducted under section 206(5) of the Companies Act, 2013, by the office of the Regional Director (N.R.), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi, and it was held that there was infringement of the provisions of the Companies Act. A direction was given for taking coercive action under relevant provisions, whereupon a notice was issued to the Company and after this, it was held to be infringement of provisions of section 211(3A)(3C) of the Companies Act, 1956, which were punishable offences under section 211(3A)(3C) of the Companies Act, 1956. Hence this complaint was filed against the those Directors of the Company. Along with this complaint there was a prayer for presumption of service of summons upon accused Company by way of summons upon accused 1 to 4 at their given addresses. It was further mentioned that u/s 200/256 of Cr.P.C. as well as 621(1-A) of the Companies Act, 1956 this complaint was by a Public Servant and had filed the complaint in performance of official capacity for the offences based upon documentary evidence and record maintained in the office. Hence personal attendance or examination was not necessary. On the basis of this complaint, Magistrate took cognizance as the complaint was filed in performance of official duty by a Public Servant for the offences punishable under section 211(3A)(3C) of the Companies Act, 1956 and it was supported with inspection report. Hence the Magistrate took cognizance, registered this complaint and thereby passed impugned summoning order dated 18.2.2019. It is neither a proforma order nor a fill in form order. Rather it is a typed order, wherein accused persons- applicants have been summoned for the offences punishable under section 211(3A)(3C) of the Companies Act, 1956.
6. A Judicial Magistrate is not required to pass order on the analytical analysis of fact and evidence at the stage of passing order u/s 204 Cr.P.C. as has been held by Apex Court in Fiona Shrikande Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2014 SC 957. The mere requirement is that the Magistrate has to see as to whether prima-facie case is there to proceed further or not. In the present case, complaint was filed by Registrar of Companies with accusations and documentary evidence in support of it, which were Inspection report submitted by the office of Regional Director (NR), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi. Hence there was sufficient prima-facie case to proceed further and pass summoning order. This was not under abuse of process of law.
7. Accordingly, the application merits its dismissal. Dismissed as such.
Order Date :- 21.10.2020/Pcl