V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.

This writ appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant, praying for a declaration that a First Information Report registered against them in Crime No.5/2015 on the file of the Economic Offences Wing of the City Police was without jurisdiction.

2. Heard Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant.

PRELUDE

3. It appears that the appellant herein was originally incorporated as a Public Limited Company under the name and style of "Express Financial Limited", having its office at T.Nagar, Chennai. It was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 8.3.1991. Subsequently, the name of the company was changed to its present form namely "Helios and Matheson Information Technology Limited", with effect from 29.4.1999.

4. Even according to the appellant, they were accepting deposits from the public as well as the shareholders for over 10 years, in terms of Section 58-A of the Companies Act, 1956 and that they were very prompt in repayment.

5. But after the replacement of The Companies Act, 1956 by the Companies Act, 2013, a new set of provisions from Sections 73 to 76 in Chapter V dealing with "Acceptance of Deposits by Companies" have come into force.

6. Under Section 74(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, every company which has accepted a deposit before the commencement of the 2013 Act, was obliged to file a statement with the Registrar of Companies, if the amount of such deposit or any interest due thereon, remained unpaid on the commencement of the Act. There was also a prohibition under the 2013 Companies Act, for such companies from accepting new deposits, unless two conditions namely (i) shareholders' approval at an Annual General Meeting and (ii) a credit rating of A++ by CRISIL, are fulfilled.

7. Even according to the appellant, they could not fulfil both the conditions required for acceptance of fresh deposits under the Companies Act, 2013. The appellant was also admittedly in default in repayment of the deposits as well as the interest, to a huge number of depositors, as on the date of commencement of the 2013 Companies Act. It is the appellant's own case that they were in the habit of receiving fresh deposits for repayment of the old deposits and this chain was cut, at the commencement of the 2013 Companies Act.

8. As a consequence, several complaints came to be lodged with the City Police and it appears that during the period from September 2014 to January 2015, the police started investigating into the complaints. The first ever First Information Report was registered against the appellant in Crime No.02 of 2015 on 29.1.2015 by one Mr.D.Ramalingam. It appears that the amount due to the said D.Ramalingam was only around Rs.2,19,020/-and this money was settled by the appellant.

9. Thereafter, the appellant moved an application before the Company Law Board under Section 74(2) of the Companies Act, 2013. The application was actually filed on 27.3.2015. The reliefs sought in the application were:

(a) to extend the time for repayment of the deposits matured on or before

(b) to extend the time for repayment of the deposits matured after 31.3.2014 by a further period of 6 months; and 31.3.2014 by a further period of one year. But, by the time the application under section 74 (2) was filed, the period of 6 months sought by the appellant in para 16(a) of their petition before the Company Law Board had already expired. The prayer sought in para 16(b) was to expire in a period of 4 days, when the petition under Section 74(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 was presented.

10. While so, on 1.4.2015, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing-II, Anna Nagar, received a complaint from one Dr.K.Ranjit Chitturi alleging that the appellant herein received deposits from investors for durations of 12, 24 and 36 months and that the defacto complainant himself made 5 deposits to the total tune of Rs.59,50,000/-during the period from 11.7.