SHAILESH HARISHCHANDRA RAJADHYAKSHA Vs. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) QUASHING of Criminal Complaint No.123/2013, under Section 629 (A) for contravention of Section 293(1)(d) of the Companies Act, 1956 titled Registrar of Companies v. M/s. Inshaallah Investments Limited & Ors. (Annexure -G) and summoning order of 12th September, 2013 and Criminal Complaint No.134/2013 titled Registrar of Companies v. Mr. Noshir Jal Driver & Ors. (Annexure -I) and the summoning order of 16th May, 2013 is sought on merits in the above captioned two petitions. Since quashing of aforesaid two complaints is sought on identical grounds, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) AT the hearing, it was disclosed by learned counsel for petitioners that Notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. has not yet been framed. At the outset, it is made clear that learned counsel for petitioners has not been heard on merits. Since petitioners have an alternate and efficacious remedy available to them to urge the pleas taken herein before trial court at the time of framing of Notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C., therefore, this Court finds that inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are not required to be invoked to quash the proceedings arising out of the complaint in question. It is being so said in view of dictum of the Apex Court in Bhushan Kumar and Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr, 2012 AIR(SC) 1747 which persuades this Court not to exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to entertain this petition. The pertinent observations of Apex Court in Bhushan Kumar , are as under: -

(3.) FURTHER , on this aspect, the dictum of the Apex Court in Krishan Kumar Variar v. Share Shoppe (2010) 12 SCC is as under: -