ORDER

ANU MALHOTRA, J.

1. The petitioner, now represented through her Legal Representative, vide this petition has sought that the Court proceeds under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, against the prospective accused without notice to them.

2. Vide order dated 15.2.2010 it was observed vide para 8 thereof to the effect:

“8. In view of the fact that the respondents Mr. Vinod Surha and Mr. Wadia Prakash have claimed before the CLB to have been appointed as Directors in the AGM which they had held on 30/09/06 showing the petitioner Sonia Khosla also to be present in that meeting, being the shareholder as well as the Director of the Company, while her passport shows that she had left India on 16/09/06 and come back on 03/10/06, this aspect definitely needs to be enquired into. However, before any final decision is taken by this Court for exercising the powers under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. for making a complaint to the Magistrate, this Court deems it fit to hold a preliminary enquiry for looking into the claim of the petitioner that she was not in India during the period from 16/09/06 to 03/10/06 and for that reason she could not have been present in the AGM of the Company which respondents 2 and 3 herein had allegedly held on 30/09/06 and so the minutes of 30/09/06 are fabricated. I, therefore, direct the Registrar (Vigilance) of this Court to hold a preliminary enquiry into the said aspect relating to the genuineness of the minutes of the AGM held on 30/09/06 and for that purpose he would be at liberty to take any steps including inspection of the record of this petition as well as that of the Company Law Board and the Company. The report would be submitted to this Court within six weeks.”

3. The inquiry report of the Registrar Vigilance is indicated to have been received as observed vide order dated 2.7.2010.

4. Vide order dated 16.8.2010 it was observed to the effect:

“+CO.Appln. No.1299/2010 in Crl.M.(CO.)

No.3/2008 Learned counsel for the respondents submits that operation of the order of this Court dated

15.02.2010 has been stayed by the Supreme Court, therefore, the matter may be adjourned.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the aforesaid stay order has been obtained by the respondent by misleading the Court inasmuch as in their SLP they have referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah vs. Meenakshi Marwah (2005) 4 SCC 370 wherein it was observed thus:-

"9. .. .. This being the scheme of two provisions or clauses of Section 195, viz., that the offence should be such which has direct bearing or affects the functioning or discharge of lawful duties of a public servant or has a direct correlation with the proceedings in a court of justice, the expression "when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in a Court" occurring in clause (b)(ii) should normally mean commission of such an offence after the document has actually been produced or given in evidence in the Court. The situation or contingency where an offence as enumerated in this clause has already been committed earlier and later on the document is produced or is given in evidence in Court, does not appear to be in tune with clauses (a)(i) and (b)(i) and consequently with the scheme of Section 195 Cr.P.C. This indicates that clause (b)(ii) contemplates a situation where the offences enumerated therein are committed with respect to a document subsequent to its production or giving in evidence in a proceeding in any Court."

Petitioner submits that bare reading of the aforesaid observations made by the Supreme Court would show that the judgment in Iqbal Singh Marwah's case(supra) dealt with the provisions of Section 195(a)(i) and Section 195(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "Code") and not pertaining to the offence of perjury governed by Section 195(b)(i) of the Code and it was not brought to the knowledge of the Supreme Court th