RAJEEV SHUKLA Vs. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Registrar of Companies has filed a criminal complaint under section 62 read with section 68 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act') against the petitioner, which is pending in the Court of ACMM, Tis Hazari, Delhi. This petition is filed seeking quashing/dismissal of the said complaint. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no criminal complaint can be filed under section 62 of the Act inasmuch as this provision deals with 'Civil liability for mis-statement in the Prospectus'. Insofar as the complaint under section 68 of the Act is concerned, his submission is that for filing complaint under this section, prior sanction of the competent authority is required and no such sanction is obtained or available to the officer/complainant who has filed the complaint.

(2.) After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the petition warrants to succeed on both counts. If in the prospectus some misstatements are given, it entails civil as well as criminal liability. For civil liability provision is made in section 62 of the Act and for criminal liability the proper provision is section 63 of the Act. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners, which is not disputed by the respondent, that on the same allegations the Registrar of Companies has already filed a separate complaint under section 63 of the Act as well. Section 62 of the Act, inter alia, provides for payment of compensation in case of misstatements in the prospectus and reads as under :-

(3.) Since this is a civil remedy, such a compensation can be claimed by filing appropriate civil suit. The criminal complaint under section 62 of the Act is, thus, not maintainable.