Judgment :- This petition has been filed under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records of the case in E.O.C.C.No.279 of 2008 pending before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offence), Egmore, Chennai and quash the same. 2. The Registrar of companies have filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging that they have filed a false statement in the document filed by suppressing certain material facts at the time of registration of company. Therefore, on that basis prosecution was launched and it appears that the matter before the trial Court has reached the stage of questioning under Section 313 Cr.PC. 3. The vehement contention of the learned Senior counsel is that on the date of 21.7.2003 itself two other family member have been inducted on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding among the family arrangement and thereafter, in the existing partners three of them have retired. Therefore, there is no suppression of it. Hence, she prayed that the petition has to be allowed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Registrar of Companies/respondent contended that from the perusal of the correspondence, it is seen that the suppression has been established. Hence, he prayed that the petition has to be dismissed. 5. This Court heard the submissions of the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent and perused the records. 6. As per Form No.V, two partners viz., Lakshmi Arun and Arun have been inducted in the partnership firm on 21.7.2003 and other three partners have retired from the firm on 28.7.2003 and Registrar of companies issued a certificate of incorporation on 31.3.2004 and the company Aruna Aloys Steel (P) Ltd was incorporated. Further it is also seen from the Memorandum of Understanding that this firm has been allotted to the share of Mr. Arunachalam as his share. On the basis of a letter received from the brother of the petitioner the respondent issued notice to the company, viz., Aruna Alloy Steels Private Limited dated 05.04.2006, calling for an explanation regarding false representation made by the petitioner, at the time of registration of company. It is also seen from communication dated 05.04.2006, that originally there were seven partners. On the basis of a letter received from the brother of the petitioner the respondent issued notice to the company, viz., Aruna Alloy Steels Private Limited dated 05.04.2006, calling for an explanation regarding false representation made by the petitioner, at the time of registration of company. It is also seen from communication dated 05.04.2006, that originally there were seven partners. From the communications dated 09.05.2006, 23.05.2006 and 20.07.2006 attached to the typed set of papers, it is seen that there were four partners, thereafter two have been inducted and three of them were retired. The operative portion of the letter, dated 20.07.2006 from the respondent to “Aruna Alloy Steels Private Limited”, reads as follows: “The three partners viz., S/Shri AR. Sevugan Chettiar, Ramaswami and SV. Pethaperumal were retired from the partnership firm by virtue of deed executed on 28.7.2003 and (ii) that two partners were inducted on 29.7.2003 vide partnership deed dated 29.07.2003. You have also stated in letter dated 5.6.2006 that the date of induction of the two partners is only 29.7.2003 and not 21.7.2003 as stipulated in the Memorandum of Association of partnership.” 7. Now the respondents would confine their argument by saying that there is a difference in date of induction of two partners. Instead of 29.7.2003, it has been mentioned as 21.7.2003. Thereafter, the prosecution is launched. 8. From the perusal of Form No.V submitted by the petitioner before the Registrar of Companies, the date of joining of the two partners has been mentioned as 21.7.2003. I am of the View that there is no Mens Rea and because of the date correction, the company is not going to get any benefit out of it. It is not the case of the respondent that for ulterior purpose they have introduced these dates. In such circumstances, the launching of the prosecution is not maintainable in law. Though the petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, since the case is at the stage of argument before the trial Court, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in E.O.C.C.No.279 of 2008 pending before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offence). It is for the trial Court to appreciate all the material records available and pass suitable orders. 9. It is for the trial Court to appreciate all the material records available and pass suitable orders. 9. The personal appearance of the accused is dispensed with and he is directed to appear before the trial Court as and when required by the trial Court. With this observation, the criminal original petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.