Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinay Bhadauria vs Insolvency And Bankruptcy Board Of … on 9 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11827
1 MCRC-32697-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
ON THE 9 th OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 32697 of 2022
VINAY BHADAURIA
Versus
INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA THROUGH
SUNIL KUMAR
Appearance:
Shri Praveen Surange - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ram Pathak- Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.c. for
quashing of the complaint dated 05.01.2021 under Section 236 for the
offence under Sections 19, 68, 69, 70, 74(1) and 235A of the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016 reach with Sections 190, 193 and 200 of the Cr.P.C.
registered with case No.SC/38/2021 before the Court of IX Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Gwalior.
2. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that a complaint was
filed by the complainant/respondent against the accused/petitioners under
Section 236 for offences under Sections 19, 68, 69, 70, 74(1) and 235A of
the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with sections 190, 193, and
200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which was registered as case
no.SC/38/2021 before learned Court of IX Additional District and Session
Judge, Gwalior. The complaint is sub-judice before the Court of IX
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 4/10/2026
5:16:05 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11827
2 MCRC-32697-2022
Additional District and Session Judge, Gwalior. Subsequent to the filing of
complaint by the complainant/respondent, summons vide dated 27.09.2021
were issued against both the accused/petitioners. But, proper procedure as
prescribed as per the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was
not followed while issuing summons to the accused/petitioners. It is clear
from the bare perusal of Section 204(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 that every summons or warrant issued under Sub-section (1) of
the said section shall be accompanied by a copy of the complaint. However,
the complainant/respondent has not been served a copy of the complaint
along with the Summons to the accused/petitioners.
3. It is further argued that the Trial Court vide order dated 05.01.2021
(Annexure P-3) has taken cognizance of the complaint in a wholly
mechanical manner, without application of judicial mind and without passing
a reasoned or speaking order, thereby vitiating the entire proceedings at the
threshold. He relied on the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Pradeep S. Wodeyar Vs. State of Karnataka 2021 SCC OnLine
SC 1140 . The Petitioners had specifically raised a preliminary objection
regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction before the Trial Court. However, the
said objection was outrightly rejected vide impugned order dated 04.05.2022
(Annexure P-1) without proper appreciation of statutory provisions and
settled law, rendering the order arbitrary and unsustainable.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the complaint was
filed under section 236 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (hereinafter
referred as IBC). Sections 236(1) and 236(2) of the IBC expressly provide as
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 4/10/2026
5:16:05 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11827
3 MCRC-32697-2022
under:
“(1) Notwithstanding anything in the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (2 of 1974), offences under of this Code shall be tried by the
Special Court established under Chapter XXVIII of the
Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013)”
“(2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable
under this Act, save on a complaint made by the Board or the
Central Government or any persons authorised by the Central
Government in this behalf.”
5. Section 436(1)(a) of Chapter XXVIII of the Companies Act, 2013
reads as under:
“436. Offences triable by Special Courts (1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure. 1973 (2 of 1974),-
(a) all offences specified under sub-section (1) of
section 435 shall be triable only by the Special Court
established for the area in which the registered office of
the company in relation to which the offence is
committed or where there are more Special Courts than
one for such area, by such one of them as may be
specified in this behalf by the High Court concerned;”
6. From the bare reading of section 436 it is clear that offences shall be
triable only by the Special Court established under section 435 having
territorial jurisdiction where the registered office of the company is situated.
It relevant to refer the Annexure D-1, wherein it is clear that as per
notification dated 18.05.2016 wherein at S. No. 6 of the list, L.d. IX
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gwalior is having jurisdiction only
with respect to State of Madhya Pradesh. While the registered office of the
company against which the complaint is relates is admittedly situated at New
Delhi. Therefore, Trial Court lacked inherent jurisdiction to take cognizance
of the complaint.
7. The complainant/respondent himself admitted that the registered
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 4/10/2026
5:16:05 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11827
4 MCRC-32697-2022
office of the company is situated at New Delhi. Then, it is relevant here to
have perusal of the Section 60 (1) of the IBC, 2016 2013, and the same is
reproduced herein for ready reference-
60. Adjudicating Authority for corporate persons .-(1) The
Adjudicating Authority, in relation to insolvency resolution and
liquidation for corporate persons including corporate debtors and
personal guarantors thereof shall be the National Company Law
Tribunal having territorial jurisdiction over the place where the
registered office of the corporate person is located.”
8. It is also admitted by the complainant/respondent that the allegations
arise out of alleged non-compliance of directions issued by the NCLT
Principle Bench. As per the notification dated 01.06.2016, the NCLT
Principle Bench is situated at New Delhi and exercises its jurisdiction over
the Union Territory of Delhi, State of Haryana and State of Rajasthan.
9. Vide notification dated 27.07.2016 issued by the Ministry of
Corporate Affairs, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-03. South-West
District, Dwarka, New Delhi has been designated as the Special Court under
Section 435 of the Companies Act for the NCT of Delhi. Therefore the entire
cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of New Delhi.
And, only the said Special Court at New Delhi has the jurisdiction to try the
alleged offences under the IBC and LD. Special Court at Gwalior has no
territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint.
10. The assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld. Trial Court is ex facie
illegal. being contrary to the mandatory statutory scheme. The entire
proceedings, including the order taking cognizance and subsequent orders,
are thus without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. Hence, this petition be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 4/10/2026
5:16:05 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11827
5 MCRC-32697-2022
allowed and the order of the court below be set aside.
11. On the contrary, learned counsel for
respondent/Board/complainant submitted that all the alleged offences were
committed sitting at the place which falls within the jurisdiction of Special
Court Gwalior. The suspended directors, being residents of Gwalior, have
failed to extend cooperation and have committed acts of non-compliance and
other related contraventions within the jurisdiction of Gwalior. The said acts
constitute continuing defaults, as the non-cooperation persists over time. In
this regard, as per Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within
whose local jurisdiction it was committed. He further argued that, Section
178 of the Code provides that in cases of continuing offences or where acts
occur across multiple jurisdictions, the matter may be inquired into or tried
by a court having jurisdiction over any such local area. He also submitted
that under Section 179 of the Code, where an act constitutes an offence by
reason of its consequences, the jurisdiction also lies where such
consequences ensue. Therefore, in light of the residence of the suspended
directors and the continuing nature and consequences of the contraventions,
the courts at Gwalior have the appropriate jurisdiction to inquire into and try
the present matter. The petitioners had not raised any issue regarding the
jurisdiction before the lower court and in the present petition also not a single
issue regarding the jurisdiction of Madhya Pradesh has been raised. Hence,
this petition deserves to be dismissed.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 4/10/2026
5:16:05 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11827
6 MCRC-32697-2022
13. It is not in dispute that the registered office of the company in
question is situated at New Delhi. It is also an admitted position that the
allegations in the complaint arise out of alleged non-compliance of
directions issued by the NCLT, Principal Bench, New Delhi.
14. As per the statutory scheme, particularly Section 60(1) of the IBC,
the Adjudicating Authority in relation to insolvency resolution of corporate
persons is the National Company Law Tribunal having territorial jurisdiction
over the place where the registered office of the corporate person is located.
Further, as per the notification issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
the Special Court designated for the National Capital Territory of Delhi is the
Court of Additional Sessions Judge, South-West District, Dwarka, New
Delhi.
15. In view of the aforesaid statutory provisions, this Court finds that
the jurisdiction to try offences under the IBC is specifically conferred upon
the Special Court linked to the place where the registered office of the
company is situated. The said provision overrides the general provisions of
the Cr.P.C. relating to territorial jurisdiction.
16. The contention of the respondent that the cause of action has arisen
at Gwalior on account of residence of the directors or alleged continuing
defaults cannot be accepted in the present case, in light of the special
statutory scheme governing trial of offences under the IBC, which clearly
mandates jurisdiction based on the location of the registered office.
Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Court of IX Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Gwalior is found to be contrary to the statutory
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 4/10/2026
5:16:05 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11827
7 MCRC-32697-2022
mandate and cannot be sustained.
17. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of with a direction
to the respondent/complainant/Board to file the complaint before the
competent Special Court having jurisdiction at New Delhi/competent court
having jurisdiction, in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court
has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all issues are left
open to be adjudicated by the competent court.
18. The concerned Special Court is directed to return the original copy
of the complaint filed by the Board/complainant and relevant certified copies
by replenishing it with photocopy of the same and respondent/complainant is
directed to file the same before the competent court/special court having
jurisdiction.
19. If the petitioner files such complaint before the
competent/concerned court within a period of three months from the date of
passing of this order, then the aforesaid Special/competent court is expected
to ignore the point of limitation, if any.
20. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
Vishal
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 4/10/2026
5:16:05 PM
