ANIL NANDA Vs. SUDHIR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has filed the present petition under section 482 Code of criminal Procedure seeking quashing of summoning order dated 31st August, 2007 as well as for quashing of criminal complaint being CC No. 941/2007 hereinafter referred to as the 'said complaint'.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the material facts of this case are that the Respondent no. 2 has filed the said complaint against the Petitioner for alleged violation of Section 42 of the Companies Act 1956. The said section renders any allotment or transfer of shares by a company to its subsidiary as void ab initio.

(3.) MR. Rajiv Nayyar, Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner states that the said complaint is grossly barred by limitation as it has been instituted much beyond the period of limitation as prescribed in section 468 (2) (a) of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter referred to as Cr. P. C. He contends that the trial court while taking cognizance of the alleged offence and issuing the summoning order has failed to consider the factum that the complaint was time barred, despite the fact that the Respondent No. 2 had itself filed an application seeking condonation of delay. He submits that the trial court had also failed to even consider the application for condonation of delay before taking cognizance of the alleged offence. In this connection Mr. Rajiv Nayyar relied upon the observations of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of 'state (Delhi Administration) Vs. Anil Puri and Ors. ' reported in ILR 1979, delhi, 350. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein below for ready reference :-