The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a shareholder to demonstrate shareholding to maintain a complaint under Section 621 of the Companies Act, 1956.

JUDGMENT :

Crl.M.A.32362/2019/2019 (exemption)

Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

CRL.M.C. 2994/2016 & Crl.M.A.32361/2019 (for urgent disposal of the petition)

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 23.07.2016 in CC No.64/3 (old number) and 511998/16 (new number) titled Deepak Khosla vs. Vikram Bakshi & Ors.

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.

4. He submits that there was enough material placed before the Trial Court in the other petition to show that he has the locus standi to maintain the complaint under Section 621 of the Companies Act, 1956.

5. It is pointed out by the petitioner that the proceedings of perjury, which were initially initiated before the High Court, now stand transferred to the National Company Law Tribunal in terms of the orders of the Supreme Court dated 08.05.2014 in SLP (Crl.) 6873/2010

6. Further, it is contended by the petitioner that Trial Court has further committed an error in holding that the issues raised before it by the subject complaint were pending before the High Court. He submits that what was filed before the High Court was an application under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. alleging perjury on the part of the respondents of making false and incorrect statements before the Company Law Board and the issues raised in the present complaint were with regard to the forgery of documents and not with regard to the perjury or making of false statement before the Company Law Board. He submits that the allegation herein is the forgery of documents and use of those documents before various authorities and judicial proceedings.

7. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah vs. Meenakshi Marwah: (2005) 4 SCC 370 to contend that he has an additional remedy of a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and also to maintain the present petition under Section 621 of the Companies Act, 1956.

8. Petitioner submits that the Trial Court has committed an error in holding that there was an overlap in the application pending before the High Court as well as the present complaint.

9. Section 621 (1) of the Companies Act, 1956 reads as under:-

“621. Offences against Act to be cognizable only on complaint by Registrar, shareholder or Government.

(1) No court shall take cognizance of any offence against this Act (other than an offence with respect to which proceedings are instituted under section 545), which is alleged to have been committed by any company or any officer thereof, except on the complaint in writing of the Registrar, or of a shareholder of the company, or of a person authorised by the Central Government in that behalf: Provided that nothing in this sub- section shall apply to a prosecution by a company