Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Vishal Sharma vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 23 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta
C.R.R. 1881 of 2020
Vishal Sharma
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
With
CRR 1883 of 2020
Vishal Sharma
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishad Medora, Adv.
Mr. Pushan Kar, Adv.
Ms. A. Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Abhidipto Tarafder, Adv.
For the Registrar of Companies
In CRR No. 1881 of 2020 : Mr. Anirban Mitra, Adv.
For the Registrar of Companies : Mr. Arun Kumar Maiti (Mohanty), Adv.
In CRR No. 1883 of 2020 Mr. Anjan Chakraborty, Adv.
Heard on : 27.01.2026
Judgment on : 23.03.2026
2
Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.:-
1. The petitioner being the Auditor/accused has filed these two Criminal
Revisional Applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') being CRR No. 1881 of 2020 and
CRR No. 1883 of 2020 seeking quashing of proceedings being
Complaint Case No. 44/2019 and Complaint Case No. 43/2019, now
pending before the Learned Judge, 2nd Special Court at Kolkata
under Section 129 and 448 of the Companies Act, 2013 (in short 'the
said Act'). Both complaints were lodged by the Deputy Registrar of
Companies (Vineet Rai) on similar facts and allegations of two
different companies. As such, both cases have been taken up
together on the consent of the parties for their disposal with a
common judgment for the sake of convenience and to avoid
repetition.
FACTS OF THE CASE: -
2. The specific case of the petitioner herein is that he is a practising
Chartered Accountant and an Income Tax payee. The Deputy
Registrar of Companies, West Bengal. He filed two complaint cases,
one being Complaint Case No. 44/2019 against two Directors
(accused nos. 1 and 2) of M/s. Marco Polo Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. and
the petitioner (accused No. 3) and another, being the Complaint Case
No. 43/2019 against two Directors of M/s. Balai Lal Mookerjee & Co.
3
Pvt. Ltd. and the petitioner (accused no. 3), being the statutory
auditor of the said company under Sections 129 and 448 of the said
Act.
3. It appears from the said complaint that the charge against the
petitioner is only under Section 448 of the said Act. There was a
rivalry and/or dispute between the companies and third parties,
wherein Prakash Kumar Roy, who has no connection whatsoever with
the said companies, started filing complaints against the companies.
Based on that, these complaints have been filed. It will be seen from
the complaint that violations of Section 129 of the said Act have been
attributed to accused nos. 1 and 2 (in both the Complaints), whereas
violations of Section 448 of the said Act have been attributed to all.
The company against which allegations are made has not been made
a party in either of the complaints.
4. The petitioner asserts that no case has been made out against him in
either of the complaints. The complaints are cryptic, and there is no
description with regard to the violation of the provisions of the said
Act by the petitioner. The allegations are false, baseless, vague and
frivolous.
5. The Learned Judge, by order dated 22 nd November, 2019, has found a
prima facie case against the accused persons and took cognizance
and issued summons upon the accused persons. It will appear that
4
the Learned Judge has not applied her mind at all. The relevant
portion from the order is quoted below.
“Heard. Perused the application. The complainant is a public
servant and therefore I am not inclined to reject the
application.”
6. It was further contention of the petitioner that the Learned Judge has
not applied her mind in the matter and has not made necessary
inquiries as to whether cognizance should have been taken and
summons should have been issued. The said order is palpably bad,
illegal and de hors the provisions of the statute. The petitioner has
not made any false statement in the financial statement, and neither
complaint discloses any falsity. The petitioner denied that the
accounts are fudged and fiddled, which is an imaginary allegation
without any particulars. The petitioner obtained bail from the
Learned Judge on 18th December, 2019.
7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Orders dated 22.11.2019
passed in Complaint Cases No. 44/2019 and 43/2019 by Learned
Judge, 2nd Special Court, Kolkata, the petitioner filed these Criminal
Revisional applications seeking quashing of the orders as well as the
proceedings pending before the Trial Court. Hence, these
applications.
5
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: –
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently
argued and submitted that the present Criminal Revisional
applications arise out of the Complaint Case No. 44 of 2019 and
Complaint case No.43 of 2019 pending before the Court of the
Learned 2nd Special Judge at Kolkata is baseless and liable to be
quashed since the case is bereft of the following reasons: –
a. Firstly, it is not maintainable since it has been filed in
contravention of Section 439(2) of the Companies Act, 2013.
Neither the registrar, a shareholder, nor a member of the
company, nor a person authorised by the Central Government on
that behalf filed it. As the instant complaint, which is not a
complaint in writing by the Registrar, has been filed by Deputy
Registrar of Companies (Vineet Rai), a person not authorised by
the Central Government, the complaint is filed without any
authorisation. In support of this contention, the Petitioner has
relied on the decision of this Hon’ble Court in Usha Martin
Telematics Limited & Ors. v. Registrar of Companies 1 which
places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Pepsi Foods Limited v. Special Judicial Magistrate 2.
1
2022 SCC Online Cal 1792
2
(1998) 5 SCC 749 [28]
6b. Neither the complaint, nor the documents in support thereof, nor
the order passed by the Learned Judge reflects submission of any
authorisation. The said order dated 22 nd November, 2019,
specifies in detail that the Deputy Registrar of Companies filed the
case, and he is the complainant who sought the dispensation of
personal attendance, which was exempted and the application was
allowed. No record of any authorisation on behalf of the Registrar
of Companies is recorded in the said order. The exemption granted
under Section 256 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 439(3) of the
Companies Act, 2013, is different from the authorisation
necessary under the other provision. It was further submitted that
before arraigning the petitioner as an accused, the company must
be entangled in the present case; otherwise, the whole complaint
is not maintainable in law.
c. The complaint is bad in law as it suffers from non-joinder and
misjoinder of the Company, being the primary accused, being
arraigned as a party in the present case.
9. The Deputy Registrar has initiated a complaint on the basis of
information received by one interloper/third party on a purported tip
and alleged contravention of Section 129 (Financial Statement) and
Section 448 (Punishment for false statement) of Companies Act, 2013
which is complained of after more than six months which is the
7
period within which any discrepancy ought to have been noticed and
complaint filed, but the purported concealment of transactions all
arose before 30th December, 2016 and the information was received
by letter dated 4th October, 2018 and complaint was filed on 22 nd
November, 2019.
10. The notification dated 30th March, 2017, under the Gazette of India,
proposed disclosure of details of Specified Bank Notes by amendment
to General instructions in preparation of Balance Sheets under
Schedule III by insertion of Clause K, was affected retrospectively;
therefore, the Central Government, being aware of such
implementation, had also introduced. The Specified Bank Notes
(Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017, was notified on 27 th February,
2017, which imposed restrictions on penalties against contravention
and offences.
11. It is an admitted position that the complaint is made beyond the
prescribed period with regard to the application under Section 447 of
the Companies Act. For such provision to apply the Complaint has to
be supported by any finding of fraud, guilty mind or mens rea, but in
the present case, no such case is made out, as the complaint
proceeds on the basis of inability to disclose specified bank notes, for
which offenses, related to fraud, cannot be ex facie made applicable
8
on account of the provisions of The Specified Bank Notes (Cessation
of Liabilities) Act, 2017 notified on 27 th February, 2017.
12. The petitioner herein is not charged for refrainment from disclosing
the details of Specified Bank Notes and has been charged only
violation under section 448 of the companies Act, 2013 for non-
disclosure of related party transactions and incorrect reporting of
Trade receivable due for within six months which will be clear from
the complaint under Section 129 and 448 of the Companies Act by
the Opposite party No.2.
13. In the aforesaid contentions raised by the Petitioner, the said
complaint is not maintainable on multiple grounds. In any event, the
purported grounds in the complaint, as alleged by the Opposite Party,
are also not maintainable on the respective submissions.
14. The case of the opposite party in respect of the contravention of the
financial statement is two-fold. Firstly, paragraph 3.1 relates to the
Auditor’s action for not disclosing specified bank notes but holds the
Petitioner/Directors liable as accused without any finding of guilt or
mens rea. Preparation of the balance sheet as per statutory norms is
a responsibility of the Auditors; therefore, unless there is proof of
guilt on the part of the Directors, they could not have been named as
accused in the present case. As per Section 129 of Companies Act,
9
financial statements are required to be in accordance with accounting
standards.
15. Further, the discussion in relation to the applicability of provisions of
The Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017, notified
on 27th February, 2017, has been discussed hereinabove. Therefore,
in light of the restriction on punishment provisions under Section
129 of the Companies Act, 2013, it cannot be applied in such a case.
16. Secondly, at paragraph 3.2 it alleges contravention of procedure laid
down under Accounting Standard 18 in recording transaction by
related parties. The particular accounting standard does not apply to
a company within the meaning of Small and Medium Sized Enterprise
level II enterprise under Accounting Standard 18.
17. From the definition of Level-II enterprise at Page 31D, it would appear
that the Company (having turnover of over Rs. 5 crores) would fit this
category of enterprise having turnover in excess of Rs. 40 lakhs and
under Rs. 5 Crores.
18. When read with exemptions/relaxations for SMEs, Related Party
Disclosure is not applicable for such an enterprise. Therefore, the
charge has been incorrectly levelled against the Company.
19. In addition to the fact that this provision is not applicable, from the
balance sheets on record, it would appear that such disclosure of
party-related transactions has been carried forward in the Books of
10
the Company for several years and is not a fresh statement that was
required to be disclosed. Unsecured Borrowings from corporate
amounting to Rs. 80,50,450/- is the related party transaction
complained of, which was reflected as on 31 st March, 2017 and 31st
March, 2016. Unsecured Borrowings from corporate amounting to
Rs. 80,50,450/- were reflected as on 31 st March, 2016 and 31st
March, 2015, and from corporate amounting to Rs. 80,50,450/- was
reflected as on 31st March, 2018 and 31st March, 2017. This is not a
new transaction that requires disclosure.
20. If there is no transaction, the question of disclosure of transaction
under Accounting Standard 18 does not and cannot arise.
21. Although there are two grounds raised by the Respondent authorities
regarding contravention of the said provision, the Petitioner restricted
submissions to paragraph 3.3 of the Complaint as the Petitioner are
not implicated as per paragraph 3.4.
22. No case of suppression of Specified Bank Notes is made out as the
Balance Sheet suffers from mere non-disclosure, and it cannot be
construed as suppression of Specified Bank Notes in respect of a
notification which was affected retrospectively. In reply, the Petitioner
relied upon a certificate from its Bankers regarding the disclosure of
Specified Bank Notes to the Registrar of Companies, which neither
11
violates the accounting standards nor the Specified Bank Notes
(Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017, notified on 27 th February, 2017.
23. Since the ambit of its offence is restricted by a Special law, provisions
of section 448 of the Companies Act cannot be attracted in such
cases.
24. It was further submitted that due to demonetization declared on 8 th
November, 2016 and the world pandemic in the year 2020, there was
almost no cash transaction whatsoever left as the cash reserve was
deposited in the account of the company. The petitioner is merely an
auditor of the company. He had no personal interest in the company
as he was neither a shareholder, nor a director, nor an employee. He
was not in any way connected with the company.
25. The Trial Court further failed to consider that the complaint, lodged
after expiry of more than one and a half years from the date of the
actual cause of action, is barred by limitation as stipulated under
section 468 of the Cr.P.C.
26. Finally, it was submitted that a Co-ordinate Bench of this High Court
in CRR No. 4526 of 2024 [Arup Mookerjee vs. The Registrar of
Companies, West Bengal] with CRR 1805 of 2020 [Archana
Chakraborty vs. The Registrar of Companies, West Bengal] dated
28th March, 2025, on identical allegations, facts and circumstances,
in relation to the same transactions against the Directors, of another
12
concern, which has held the complaint to be bad in law and liable to
be set aside, being not in accordance with law and abuse of the
process of law.
27. It was further submitted that this court also allowed a revisional
application, being CRR No. 1806 of 2020 (Apurba Mookerjee v. The
Registrar of Companies, dated 4th February, 2026, and quashed the
proceedings against the Directors of the company. Therefore, the
petitioner herein is also entitled to the same relief.
28. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Complaint Case no. 44
of 2019 and Complaint Case no. 43 of 2019 pending before the
Learned 2nd Special Judge at Kolkata are also liable to be quashed on
the same prepositions; otherwise, it would be highly prejudicial
and/or an abuse of process of law.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES:-
29. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Registrar
of Companies submitted that the instant Criminal Revisional
application stems out of a complaint case being Complaint Case No.
44 of 2019 and Complaint case no. 43 of 2019 pending before the
Learned Second Special Judge at Kolkata whereby, necessary
processes were issued in respect of the present petitioner so far as
the violation of Section 448 of the Companies Act, 2013.
13
30. The Auditor is a monitor for the company and is duty-bound to report
if they find any irregularities in the company, but failed. The
Petitioner has deliberately violated section 448 of the Companies Act,
2013, and as such a prima facie case has been made out against the
present petitioner.
31. The Learned counsel representing the Registrar submitted upon
enquiry, it was found that the financial statements furnished by the
company do not give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the
company. Furthermore, it has been revealed that the petitioner, while
filing the financial statement, omitted material facts knowing it to be
material for the purposes of this Act. Thus, the petitioner has
committed fraud that tantamount to omission and/or concealment of
any fact as defined under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013.
32. The Deputy Registrar of Companies is not empowered to file a
complaint before the Learned Court by virtue of section 439 (2) of the
Companies Act, 2013, which is an utterly misconceived nuance of
Law. In this regard, it is submitted that as per section 2(75) of the
Companies Act, 2013, the term “Registrar” means a registrar, an
additional registrar, a joint registrar, a deputy registrar or an
assistant registrar having the duty of registering companies and
discharging various functions under the Act. Therefore, since the
terminology and definition of the term “Registrar” includes a Deputy
14
Registrar as well, it can be conclusively said that he is accordingly
duly empowered to file the instant complaint case before the Court of
the Learned Second Special Court at Kolkata.
33. The Petitioner has alleged that the instant Complaint Case is barred
by limitation, which is also misconceived. The provision of Section
448 of the Companies Act is not subject to Section 468 of the Cr.P.C.,
as it is punishable by imprisonment up to 10 years. Additionally, an
offence committed under section 447 of the Act, which is in the
nature of the fraud committed, is a continuing one and, therefore,
Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. has no manner of applicability whatsoever.
Accordingly, it is urged that the instant Criminal Revisional
application is not maintainable in its tenor and form and as such, the
same should be dismissed in limine.
34. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has placed reliance on
the following judgments:-
i. State of U.P. Vs. O.P. Sharma3 particularly in paragraph nos. 12,
13 and 14;
ii. Kathyayini Vs. Sidharth P.S. Reddy & Ors. 4 particularly in
paragraph no. 23;
iii. Satvinder Kaur Vs. State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi) and Anr. 5
particularly in paragraph nos. 14 and 16;
3
(1996) 7 SCC 705;
4
2025 INSC 818;
5
(1999) 8 SCC 728;
15
iv. Mushtaq Ahmad Vs. Mohd. Habibur Rehman Faizi and Ors. 6.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THIS COURT: –
35. This Court has carefully heard the arguments and submissions made
by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respective parties
and upon perusal of the complaint and judgments relied by the
parties, the principal questions which arise for consideration are as
follows: –
i. Whether the complaint filed by the Deputy Registrar of Companies
is maintainable in view of section 439(2) of the Companies Act,
2013?
ii. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
iii. Whether the alleged contraventions of Section 129 read with
Section 448 of the Companies Act, 2013 are prima facie made out?
iv. Whether the prosecution against the petitioner/Auditor is
sustainable in the absence of the company being arraigned as an
accused?
36. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the allegations in the
impugned complaints primarily pertain to contravention of Section
129 of the Companies Act, 2013, relating to the preparation of
financial statements, which allegedly do not reflect a true and fair
view of the affairs of the company. The petitioner, however, has been
6
(1996) 7 SCC 440.
16
sought to be prosecuted solely under Section 448 of the Companies
Act, 2013, which provides punishment for making a false statement
in any return, report, certificate, financial statement or other
document required under the Act.
37. The core contention raised by the petitioner is that the complaints fail
to disclose any specific allegation that the petitioner, in his capacity
as statutory auditor, knowingly made a false statement or
intentionally concealed any material fact in the financial statements
of the companies. A careful reading of the complaint petitions reveals
that the allegations are largely directed against the company and its
directors, and no particular overt act has been attributed to the
petitioner that would bring his conduct within the ambit of Section
448 of the Companies Act.
38. It is well settled that criminal liability cannot be fastened in the
absence of specific allegations disclosing the essential ingredients of
the offence alleged. In this context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation 7 has held
that criminal liability of officers of a company cannot be inferred
merely because of their designation unless there are clear allegations
demonstrating their active role coupled with criminal intent.
7
(2015) 4 SCC 609
17
39. In the present case, the petitioner is a statutory auditor, whose duties
are governed by the provisions of the Companies Act and the
applicable accounting standards. The responsibility of preparing
financial statements primarily lies with the management and
directors of the company, whereas the auditor’s role is limited to
examining such statements and expressing an opinion thereon based
on the material available.
40. The allegation against the petitioner essentially relates to the non-
disclosure of Specified Bank Notes (SBN) during the demonetization
period in the balance sheet of the company. However, the petitioner
has contended that the alleged omission, if any, was neither
deliberate nor intended to conceal any material fact, and that the
balance sheets in question were prepared based on the records and
information furnished by the management of the company.
41. For invoking Section 448 of the Companies Act, it must be
demonstrated that the accused knowingly made a false statement or
omitted a material fact with knowledge of its falsity. The complaint,
however, does not disclose any material suggesting that the petitioner
had the requisite mens rea or fraudulent intent.
42. The allegation of the Deputy Registrar in the written complaint before
the Trial Court, with regard to the offence committed by the
Petitioner, is under Section 448 of the Companies Act, 2013.
18
“3.5 The company did not disclose any related party transactions
violating Accounting Standard-18. But the auditor reported that “In
our opinion the aforesaid financial statements comply with the
Accounting Standards specified under section 133 of the Act read
with Rule 7 of the Companies (Accounts) Rules 2014.” The auditor
has violated the provisions of Section 448 of the companies Act,
2013.
Hence, the accused nos. 3 herein is liable U/s 448 of the
companies Act, 2013.
3.6 According to the profit and loss account for 2016-17 total
income for the year was Rs.22.11 lakhs. But trade receivable lying
due for within six months was stated as Rs.47.83 lakhs. If total
income was only around of Rs. 22.00 lakhs how Rs.47.00 is trade
receivable having age less than 6 months. i.e. arising within the
year 2016-17 itself? The accounts are fudged and fiddled. The
Auditor being in connivance with management, did not report
anything. The Auditor and the Directors violated section 448 of the
Companies Act, 2013.”
43. The complaint was made on 22nd November, 2019, by the Deputy
Registrar of Companies, West Bengal, Kolkata, before the Court of the
Learned Second Special Judge at Kolkata.
44. The first issue raised by the petitioner herein is that the Deputy
Registrar is not the competent authorised person to lodge a complaint
as aforesaid. To decide the same, this court would like to examine the
provision stipulated in Section 439 (2) of the Companies Act, 2013.
19
“S. 439. Offences to be non-cognizable. –
(2) No court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act
which is alleged to have been committed by any company or any
officer thereof, except on the complaint in writing of the Registrar, a
shareholder or a member of the company, or of a person
authorized by the Central Government in that behalf:
Provided that the court may take cognizance of offences relating to
issue and transfer of securities and non-payment of dividend, on a
complaint in writing, by a person authorised by the Securities and
Exchange Board of India:
Provided further that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to a
prosecution by a company of any of its officers.”
45. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the complaint has been
filed by Deputy Registrar of Companies (Vineet Rai), which is not a
complaint in writing filed by the Registrar, a shareholder or a member
of the company, or of a person authorised by the Central
Government. However, as per section 2 (75) of the Companies Act
2013, the term “registrar” means a registrar, an additional registrar, a
joint registrar, a deputy registrar or an assistant registrar having the
duty of registering companies and discharging various functions
under the Act. Therefore, since the terminology and definition of the
term ‘registrar’ means and includes a Deputy Registrar as well, it can
be conclusively said that he is accordingly duly empowered to file the
instant complaint case before the Court of the Learned Second
20
Special Judge at Kolkata. Therefore, the complaint made by the
Deputy Registrar of the company is well maintainable in law.
46. So far as the issue relating to the bar by limitation for initiation of
proceedings is concerned, this court finds the complaint is not barred
by limitation because the alleged offence committed by the company
and its director between the period 8th November, 2016 to 30th
December, 2016, is for non-disclosure of specified bank notes. The
complaint was made in the month of November, 2019. The offence
under section 129 of the Companies Act shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine
which shall not be less than Fifty Thousand Rupees but which may
extend to Five Lakh Rupees, or with both and insofar as Section 448
of the Companies Act, 2013, any person makes a statement (a) which
is false in any material particulars, knowing it to be false or (b) which
omits any material fact, knowing it to be material, he shall be liable
under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013, which provides for
maximum imprisonment up to 10 years, Hence, the period of
limitation for instituting the case is not at all barred under Section
468 of the Cr.P.C.
47. Another point raised by the petitioner herein with regard to the
information given by an interloper/third party is based on a lack of
particulars. The complaint itself is bereft of particulars. No specific
21
allegation was made in the complaint against the petitioner. A vague
and general allegation attributed against the petitioner is not a
sufficient basis to proceed with the criminal offence. There should be
specific allegations with better particulars, but in the present case,
the same is missing.
48. Regardless of the interpretational dispute, it is evident that the
allegation is of non-disclosure in the balance sheet and not of
fabrication of accounts or falsification of records. Section 448 of the
Companies Act contemplates punishment for “false statement”, which
necessarily imports an element of deliberate falsity and mens rea.
49. From the complaint and materials placed, this Court does not find
any specific allegation that the petitioner made any statement
knowing it to be false. At best, the allegation is of omission to disclose
particulars in a particular format.
50. It is not a disputed fact that the company has not been named as an
accused in the present case. Only the directors and the statutory
Auditor have been made out as the accused in the instant case.
51. No specific allegation regarding non-disclosure of any statement,
known to be false or suppressed, is mentioned in the complaint
lodged by the complainant. The allegations contained in the
complaint are insufficient to allow the proceedings against the
present petitioner because it would only be an abuse of process of law
22
since the allegations are vague and general in nature. Even for the
sake of argument, if it continued, it would be merely useless because
the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. Continuation of
criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and
prejudice, and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not
quashing the criminal case.
52. Furthermore, proceedings against the directors of the company have
been quashed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
CRR No. 4526 of 2024 [Arup Mookerjee vs. The Registrar of
Companies, West Bengal] with CRR 1805 of 2020 [Archana
Chakraborty vs. The Registrar of Companies, West Bengal] dated 28 th
March, 2025 and by this Bench in the case of CRR 1806 of 2020
(Apurba Mookerjee Vs. The Registrar of Companies, West Bengal).
Therefore, this court extends the same privilege to the petitioner
herein since the allegation against the petitioner is non-specific,
vague and without material particulars.
53. Upon consideration of the above factors, this Court is of the view that
continuation of the proceeding against the petitioner would amount
to abuse of process of law and for securing ends of justice; proceeding
against the petitioner is required to be quashed.
23
54. Consequently, CRR No. 1881 of 2020 and CRR No. 1883 of 2020
are allowed. Connected applications, if any, are also thus, disposed
of.
55. The proceedings being Complaint Case No. 44/2019 and Complaint
Case No. 43/2019 now pending before the Learned Judge, 2 nd Special
Court at Kolkata under Section 448 of the Companies Act, 2013 are
hereby quashed insofar as the petitioner herein is concerned and all
orders passed therein are hereby set aside.
56. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the Learned Trial Court for
information.
57. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
58. Case diary, if any, be returned to the learned counsel for the State.
59. All parties shall act on the basis of a server copy of this judgment
duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
60. Urgent photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied for, is to
be given as expeditiously to the parties on compliance of all legal
formalities.
(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)
P. Adak (P.A.)