MOOL CHAND GARG, J. 1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of the complaint filed by respondent No.1 in the Court of learned ACMM, Delhi under Section 374 of The Companies Act, 1956. The only short point involved in this petition is as to whether the complaint filed by the respondents was barred by limitation and as such was liable to be dismissed.

2. The petitioner has been called upon to appear before the Court of ACMM to face the aforesaid complaint filed by the Registrar of Companies under Section 200 Cr.P.C. disclosing commission of an offence under Section 374 of the Companies Act, 1956 for 13.10.2004. It is submitted that the ACMM has taken cognizance of the alleged offence vide her order dated 21.07.2004 without application of mind and has passed the impugned order in a most mechanical and casual manner.

3. It has been submitted by the petitioners that M/s VLS Finance Ltd. a subsidiary of the petitioner had been harassing the petitioner for a long time and it is at their behest that the present complaint was filed after a long delay. Yet the ACMM has taken cognizance of the complaint though the cognizance thereof cannot be taken in view of the bar contained under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. as the period of limitation for the offence, as alleged against the petitioner, is only 6 months inasmuch as the offence punishable with fine only. However, in this case the complaint has been filed in 2004 whereas the period of limitation expired on February 2000 inasmuch as the inspection which is the basis of the filing of the complaint was carried out by the Registrar of Companies under Section 209-A in the affairs of the petitioner-company was conducted in 1999. Reference has also been made to a judgment of this Court reported in Vinod Kumar Jain Vs. Registrar of Companies, Delhi and Haryana (1987) 2 Comp LJ 188 (Del). It is, thus, submitted that since the cognizance could not have been taken by the ACMM, the question of proceeding the matter any further against the petitioner by the Registrar of companies is an abuse of process of Court and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to discharge forthwith after the dismissal of the complaint. 4. Before reverting to the submissions which have been made by the respondents we may take note of certain paragraphs of the complaint which are material for the purpose of deciding the petition, which are as under: 4. That during the course of inspection Dr. Navrang Saini in the Inspecting Officer noticed from the accounts and record for the financial year as at 31.3.93 that the company is wholly owned subsidiary viz. Sunair Ltd. Formed in Oct. 1993. An amount of Rs. 75,000 was spent on incorporation of subsidiary company out of which equity shares for Rs. 7000/- were issued by the subsidiary company to it making it the wholly owned subsidiary company since incorporation and the balance remained in the books of both the companies as share application money for which shares have now been issued. It has stated that as on 31.3.1993 it had paid up capital of Rs. 99.00 lac and reserves of Rs. 2.85 lacs. According to Notification No. 621(E) dated 24.9.93 (Amending Rule 11C) company can invest up to 30% of the subscribed equity share capital of the aggregate of paid up equity and preferential share capital of such other body corporate whichever is less. Thus it had made invest exceeding 30% subscribed capital of invest company without previous approval of Central Govt. required under Section 372(4) of the Act. As such all the accused have contravened the provisions of Section 372(4) of the Companies Act, 1956 punishable under section 374 of the companies Act 1956. Photocopy of the balance sheet as at 31.3.1993 is annexed as Annexure 3 to the complaint. 5. That no sooner the commission of the offence came to the knowledge of complainant, show cause notice dated 19.05.2004 (copy marked as Annexure-4) to the complaint) was thereaft