Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 124 (KAR)

R. K. Kapur v. Registrar of Companies

2009-02-11

K.BHAKTHAVATSALA

body2009
JUDGMENT K. Bhakthavatsala, J.— The petitioner is before this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying for quashing the proceedings as against him in C. C. Nos. 684 of 2006, 685 of 2006, 686 of 2006, 687 of 2006, 108 of 2006,109 of 2006, 110 of 2006 and 111 of 2006 on the file of the Special Court of Economic Offences, Bangalore, for the offence under Section 220(3); 159, 161 and 162; 168; 210(5); 159, 161 and 162; 220(3) and 168 of the Companies Act, 1956, for non-filing of balance-sheet in triplicate on or before February 28, 2006, for the financial year ending 2004-05; non-filing of annual returns on or before February 28, 2006, for the financial year ending 2004-05; non-holding of annual general body meeting on or before February 28, 2006, for the financial year ending 2004-05; non-filing of balance-sheet, profit and loss account on or before February 28, 2006, for the financial year ending 2004-05; non-filing of balance-sheet, the profit and loss account on or before February 28, 2005, for the financial year ending 2003-04; non-filing of annual returns on or before February 28, 2005, for the financial year ending 2003-04; non-filing of balance-sheet in triplicate on or before February 28, 2005, for the financial year ending 2003-04 and non-holding of annual general body meeting on ore before February 28, 2005 for the financial year ending 2003-04. 2. The case of the petitioner is that since February 1, 2003, he is no more a director of accused No. 1-company. Under such circumstances respondent No. 1-complainant filing a complaint against the present petitioner is not maintainable. 3. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 1-complainant submits that he has not received any instruction from the company board as to whether accused No. 1-company has submitted Form No. 32 pertaining to his resignation from the directorship of the company or not. 4. Keeping in view that the petitioner has written a letter dated February 1, 2003, to the managing director of accused No. 1-company resigning from the office of the directorship of the company from February 1, 2003, and consequently filing a Form No. 32 in that regard before the Company Law Board, it cannot be said that the petitioner-accused is responsible for the violation of the provisions of the Companies Act mentioned above for the financial year ending 2003-04 and 2004-05. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. 5. In the result, these petitions are allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C. Nos. 684 of 2006, 685 of 2006, 686 of 2006, 687 of 2006, 108 of 2006, 109 of 2006, 110 of 2006 and 111 of 2006 on the file of Special Court of Economic Offences, Bangalore, is quashed.