IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.
Karishma Kayal - Petitioner
Versus
State of Assam and Another - Respondents
Crl.Pet. No. 559 of 2020
Decided On : 12-08-2021
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 — Companies Act, 2013 – Section 212(2) - Crime Investigation Department -Saving of inherent powers of High Court - Investigation into affairs of company by Serious Fraud Investigation Office - Whether investigation can be carried out by the CID, in respect of the offences, alleged to have been committed by the accused-petitioner, whereas, she was an employee under the group of companies and whether the investigation of such offences can only be conducted by Serious Fraud Investigation Office - Held, Court appears no illegality in registering the case by the CID and the provision under section 212(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 (which has already been mentioned above) has not denuded the investigation carried by any other agency, apart from SFIO - Contended in the present petition that there being alternative recourse to investigate into the affairs of the company by the SFIO, the CID has no jurisdiction to try the offence, will hold no good and it is answered accordingly -Inherent power under section 482, Cr.PC is in exception, but not a rule and it is to be applied with circumspection in exceptional cases only to prevent the abuse of law and to prevent the miscarriage of justice - Challenge to the FIR in the present case being entirely related to the relevant provision of law as has been discussed above, which has been suitably resisted by the counterpart, there remains no scope to accept the contention that has been raised - Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. M. Phukan, learned P.P., Assam, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. D. Saikia, learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent No. 2/informant.
2. By filing this petition under section 482 of the Cr.PC, the petitioner is assailing the legality and validity of the criminal proceedings drawn up against her, pursuant to lodging of the FIR dated 7.3.2020, by the respondent No. 2, Dr. Nivedita Barthakur Sondhi, the Chief Executive Officer of the M/s. L.B. Group of Companies, before the SSP, CID, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, resulting registration of CID P.S. Case No. 03/2020, under section 120 B/408/420/467/477 A of the IPC, dated 21.3.2020.
In support of her plea for setting aside/quashing of the FIR as well as the CID Case, the petitioner's counsel contends that the CID has no jurisdiction to investigate into an offence under the Companies Act, 2013 (‘the Act’), as the same are to be investigated by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office, established under the provisions of the Act, as it is well settled that the extent of special law shall prevail over the general laws. Resultantly the G.R. Case No. 4396/2020, arising out of the FIR, which was registered as CID P.S. Case No. 03/2020, is liable to be quashed and set aside.
3. The case of the petitioner is that she was originally appointed as the Accounts Executive of a Private Limited Company, incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, by the name and style of M/s. L.B. Medi Services Private Ltd., on 1.12.2015. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Deputy Chief Executive Officer (Dy. CEO) and Chief Financial Officer (CFO), in the year 2018. M/s. L.B. Medi Services (P.) Ltd. is a constituent of a group of companies under the name and style of “L.B. Group of Companies” and the management and ownership of the said group is almost same, as that of M/s. L.B. Medi Services Private Ltd. The constituent companies of the L.B. Group of Companies along with their individual line of business are as follows:
(b) L.B. Agro (P.) Ltd. : Recycled Paper Manufacturing.
(c) L.B. Enterprises (P.) Ltd. : Cable Wires Manufacturing.
(d) Dihing Tea Co. (P.) Ltd. : Tea garden and Tea factory.
4. The Chief Executive Officer of the M/s. L.B. Group of Companies lodged an FIR before the SSP, CID, Guwahati, on 7.3.2020, alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner was working as the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and the Deputy Chief Executive Officer (Dy. CEO) in their Group of Companies since 28.3.2018. From 8.1.2020 to 8.2.2020, the petitioner went on leave on account of her wedding and resumed her duties from 25.2.2020. During her leave period, the informant side came to know about several financial and procedural anomalies, mishandling of cash accounts, wrongful disbursals of cash and payments, forgery of documents, all of which has resulted in huge financial impact on the L.B. Group of Companies. Then a detail scrutiny was initiated by the Group of Companies, through the competent professionals and the same was continuing till lodging of the FIR.
5. The petitioner took decisions on day-to-day basis as to how much amount is to be withdrawn from various Bank Accounts and to be disbursed, for meeting expenses. On several occasions, the petitioner fraudulently obtained the signature of the Chairperson on the cheques in the garb of petty cash expenses by using her official capacity. After withdrawing the amount, she handed over the same to Sri Pranjal Das, Accounts Executive and Sri Ananda Ram Boro, Office Care Assistant, to disburse the amount and keep the record thereof.
6. On scrutiny of the informant company, the following irregularities came into the notice, among others:
Court confirms that the assignment of investigation to the Serious Fraud Investigation Office under Section 212 can occur regardless of ongoing inquiries under Section 210, without violating principl....
The police have jurisdiction to investigate IPC offenses connected to company affairs despite provisions under the Companies Act; acts constituting fraud must relate to actions after the Act's enactm....
The court quashed the proceedings against the accused, finding no substantial evidence of cheating or conspiracy, emphasizing the lack of dishonest intention and meeting of minds.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the provision allowing 'any person concerned' to obtain a copy of the investigation report under Section 212(13) of the Companies Act, 2013....
The Reserve Bank of India's guidelines do not confer jurisdiction upon the CBI to investigate bank fraud without prior state consent as mandated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act.
Point of Law : No proceedings could have been initiated by a Shareholder by himself under Section 447 of the Act and that the requirement under Sub-Section (6) of Section 212 of the Act was required ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.