DEEPAK KHOSLA Vs. STATE OF NCT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRL.M.C. 2994/2016 & Crl.M.A.32361/2019 (for urgent disposal of the petition)

(2.) By the impugned order the complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed on two counts, firstly on the ground that no document was produced on record to show that he was one of the shareholders of the subject Company and thus entitled to maintain a complaint under Section 621 of the Companies Act, 1956 and the second ground given by the Trial Court for dismissing the complaint was that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 340 (2) Cr.P.C. before the High Court alleging commission of act of perjury by the respondent. The Trial Court was of the view that since the High Court had directed a preliminary inquiry to be conducted by the Registrar (Vigilance) of the High Court and to submit a report thereon with regard to the allegations made by the petitioner and the matter is sub judice before the High Court, no direction could be issued by that Court on the same issues.

(3.) The petitioner, who appears in Court in person, submits that there were two similar complaints pending before the Trial Court, which were disposed of on the same day by identical orders, except that in the other complaint there was no findings returned by the Trial Court that petitioner had failed to produce any document to show that he was a shareholder and thus entitled to maintain an application under Section 621 of the Companies Act, 1956.