The Delhi High Court single bench presided by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, while entertaining the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, quashed the proceedings against the Chartered Accountant because the Registrar of Companies (ROC) delayed Filing a complaint within the limitation period of 6 months.
The petitioner Partha Gosh, a Chartered Accountant filed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition before the HC under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), directed against the criminal case pending in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) and order of summoning dated 10.07.2014.
The petitioner is a partner at Price Water House, Chartered Accountants, which serves as a Statutory Auditor of M/s Religare Finvest Limited.
On July 10, 2014, a complaint was lodged by the ROC against the petitioner in the ACMM under Section 233 of the Companies Act, 1956, for the commission of an offence under Sections 227(2) and 227(3)(d) of the Companies Act, 1956 which is only liable for a fine.
The fact is that the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) directed for inspection of the books of accounts and other records of the Company under Section 209(A) of the Companies Act 1956 on 16.01.2013. The inspection of the books of accounts of the Company was carried out by the Assistant Director (Inspection) in April 2013.
The petitioner was encouraged by the inspecting officer to provide an explanation for the violations found in the inspection on 22.05.2013. The complaint alleges that the petitioner did not produce a terse reply until the submission of the inspection report.
An inspection report was submitted on 24.06.2013, and the Regional Director forwarded it to the MCA the same day, so that the MCA may consider the various violations indicated there and issue the appropriate recommendations.
In a letter dated 21.03.2014, MCA instructed the ROC to file the complaint against the petitioner. As a response, the complaint was lodged on 10. 07. 2014, and ACMM had taken cognizance of it.
Gurmeet Bindra, the counsel for the petitioner argued that the complaint’s allegations did not amount to an offence and that the complaint was submitted after the six-month limitation period had passed in accordance with Sections 468 and 469 of the Cr.P.C.
Moreover, the counsel referred to a similar case Kavi Arora V. ROC where the same court quashed the complaint on the ground of limitation.
Ajay Digpaul and Soumava Karhakar, the counsel for respondents, claimed that the financial years 2009 to 2012 were inspected in April 2013 and that as a result, an explanation from the petitioner was sought on 22.05.2013, as well as a report was then submitted to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs on 24. 06. 2013.
Further argued that the mentioned case of Kavi Arora has not been properly made and has to reconsider the decision.
The Court stated that it hasn’t come across any opinions that differ from the ruling made in the Kavi Arora case. In light of this, the court quashed the contested summoning order dated 10.07.2014, in addition to other consequential proceedings.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
