JUDGMENT Heard. 2. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.) the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2264 of 2009, Registrar of Companies Vs. Jaspal Singh relating to offence punishable under Section 234 of Companies Act, 1956. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit and counter affidavit. 4. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner Jaspal Singh, was Director of M/s Himalayan Petro Products and Allied Works Private Limited, incorporated on 25.02.1985, under the Companies Act. On 19.12.2008, the complaint was sent by Abid Hussain Khan, that the petitioner had resigned from the post of Director of the Company in the year 1992, but he signed form No. 32 dated 01.01.2004, projecting himself as Director of the Company. On the said complaint respondent issued notice under Section 234 of the Companies Act to Jaspal Singh and to Abid Hussain Khan. Sri Abid Hussain Khan responded to the notice on 19.03.2009. But petitioner sought further time vide his letter dated 10.04.2009 and he was given one more opportunity on 01.06.2009, to produce the record in support of his claim that he was the Director. When the petitioner failed to produce the documents, the respondent filed impugned criminal complaint against the petitioner relating to offence punishable under Section 234(1) read with sub-section (4) of the said Section. 5. It is pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that the criminal complaint is barred by time. It is contended that non furnishing of any information or explanation by the Company or a person is punishable with fine only. Attention of this Court is drawn to Section 468 of Cr.P.C., and it is argued that the criminal complaint is filed after six months of making complaint by Abid Hussain Khan. 6. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds that Sri Abid Hussain Khan, had complained about making false statement by the petitioner in the form submitted to the respondent. The said offence is punishable under Section 628 of Companies Act, 1956, and punishment of two years is provided in that Section. A separate criminal complaint appears to have been filed in respect of that offence. The present complaint in question relates to non compliance of sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 234 of the Companies Act. The said offence is punishable under Section 628 of Companies Act, 1956, and punishment of two years is provided in that Section. A separate criminal complaint appears to have been filed in respect of that offence. The present complaint in question relates to non compliance of sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 234 of the Companies Act. In other words, the offence alleged by the complainant in the present complaint in question pertains to non-furnishing the information, and documents by the petitioner in compliance of notices issued under Section 234 of the Act. From the Para No. 6 and 7 of the criminal complaint in question, it is clear that on 10th of April, 2009, petitioner himself sought further time to comply the notice, and he was given next date as 01.06.2009, to produce the documents. In either case, whether the limitation is counted from 10.04.2009, or from 01.06.2009, period of limitation of six months does not get expired on 16.10.2009, when the Magistrate took cognizance and issued summoning order. 7. In the above circumstance, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the trial of the case on the aforesaid ground. However, it is left open to the petitioner to raise plea of his innocence and explanation before the trial court that he had no mens rea to dishonour the notice issued to him under Section 234 of the Companies Act. 8. With the above observations, this petition moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed.