ODISHA INFRATECH PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, with prayer to quash the F.I.R. in E.O.W. Bhubaneswar P.S.Case No.08 dated 31.10.2020 (Annexure1) and further proceedings in T.R.No.414 of 2020 pending before the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar, have preferred the present case invoking Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) Originally, petitioners No.1 to 3 have filed the CRLMC and then petitioners No.4 and 5 joined. Petitioner No.1 i.e., M/s. Odisha Infratech Pvt. Ltd. a company registered under the Companies Act was initially represented by petitioner No.2 as the Director of the company. Petitioner No.3 was one of the employee of the company. In the meantime petitioners No.2 and 3 have withdrawn their position from the company as well as from the case. Petitioner No.2 in his memo of withdrawal dated 13.11.2020, has withdrawn himself as petitioner No.2 and his representation to petitioner No.1 company by stating that he has resigned from the post of CFO of the company as well as the Directorship of the company. Accordingly, by order dated 13.11.2020 he was deleted from the present case. Petitioner No.3 in his memo dated 16.11.2020 submits for his withdrawal from the case. Further, taking note of the development in situation, I.A.No.1097 of 2020 has been filed by petitioner No.4 on 16.11.2020 praying to allow her to represent petitioner No.1 company, she being one of the promoters of petitioner No.1 company.

(3.) Bereft of the development happened on 16.11.2020, in view of the withdrawal of petitioner No.2 from the case on 13.11.2020, an objection was raised by opposite party No.3 that, the present case by petitioner No.1 is not maintainable since petitioner No.2, who was representing petitioner No.1, has not only withdrawn himself from the case, but also resigned from the Directorship of petitioner No.1 company. In reply to the said objection, it is submitted on behalf of the rest of the petitioners that, upon resignation of petitioner No.2 from his position in the company, a new Director is required to be appointed as per the procedure, which may take some time. Therefore, his resignation from the company and withdrawal from the case does in no way affect the maintainability of the case for petitioner No.1 company. Moreover when both promoters of the company are there on record as petitioners No.4 and 5, any one of them can represent the company and these sheer technicality should not stand on the way to decide the case on merit.