Delhi High Court - Orders
Vijay M Manoora vs Iris Computer Ltd on 13 October, 2023
Author: Tushar Rao Gedela
Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela
$~60
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 7554/2023
VIJAY M MANOORA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. B.B. Pradhan and Mr. Sandeep
Kumar, Advocates.
versus
IRIS COMPUTER LTD ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
ORDER
% 13.10.2023 [The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode] CRL.M.A. 28105/2023 (for exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 7554/2023 & CRL.M.A. 28104/2023 (for stay)
3. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 25.07.2016 passed by learned MM-03, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Criminal Case No. 39105/2016 captioned as "IRIS Computer Ltd. vs. Sai Infosystems (India) Ltd. & Ors.".
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a Director in the Company styled as Sai Infosystem (India) Ltd., however, had resigned in the month of January, 2011.
CRL.M.C. 7554/2023 Page 1 of 4This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/10/2023 at 20:54:41
5. Learned counsel submits that the said fact is also recorded in the resolution passed by the said accused/ company at page 26 of the present petition.
6. Learned counsel also submits that simultaneously the FORM 32 indicating that the petitioner has ceased to be a director of the aforesaid company, which is accused No. 1 in the complaint, w.e.f., 24.01.2011 is annexed at page No. 27 of the present petition.
7. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was not even a signatory to the cheque, which is placed at page 30 of the present petition. That apart, learned counsel submits that the complaint, was filed in the year 2013 and the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs displaying the list of directors of the aforesaid company, particularly did not reflect his name therein.
8. Learned counsel submits that having regard to the fact that the petitioner was not reflected as a Director in the year 2013, the learned Trial Court vide the order dated 21.11.2013 had issued summons to all the accused persons except accused Nos. 3 and 4. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was arrayed as accused No. 3.
9. Learned counsel submits that in the interregnum, the complaint was returned.
10. In accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra bearing Crl. Appeal No. 2287/2009, which was rendered on 01.08.2014, the respondents had withdrawn the complaint to file it before the appropriate Court having the territorial jurisdiction, however the same was not done till the passage of at least one year.
CRL.M.C. 7554/2023 Page 2 of 4This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/10/2023 at 20:54:41
11. Learned counsel further submits that it was only after the passage of almost one year that the complaint was re-filed on 15.12.2015 and it was by virtue of re-filing that the impugned summoning order dated 25.07.2016 summoning the petitioner as an accused was passed.
12. Learned counsel further submits that all along during this period, the petitioner had no information in respect of the aforesaid complaint, which was pending before the learned Trial Court.
13. Learned counsel submits that it is only when the neighbours of petitioner where he resided previously, informed him that the police was looking for him on account of bailable warrants issued against him by the learned Trial Court, that he gained knowledge of the said summoning order.
14. Learned counsel submits that it was for this reason that the petitioner has approached this Court without a delay on the ground that the learned MM has no power to review its own order.
15. Learned counsel further submits that due to inadvertence, the other accused persons have not be arrayed in the present memo of parties.
16. He seeks and is granted two weeks time to place on record the amended memo of parties.
17. Issue notice. Notice be issued thereafter, upon the respondents by all permissible modes, upon the petitioner taking appropriate steps within a week.
18. In the meanwhile, the proceedings qua the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance till the next date of hearing. In any case, the learned CRL.M.C. 7554/2023 Page 3 of 4 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/10/2023 at 20:54:42 Trial Court shall also not give effect to the order dated 24.05.2023.
19. List on 22.01.2024.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J OCTOBER 13, 2023/nd CRL.M.C. 7554/2023 Page 4 of 4 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/10/2023 at 20:54:42