J U D G M E N T

1. The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as „Cr.P.C.‟) is directed against the complaint bearing CC No.171/3 of 2014 pending in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter, referred to as “ACMM”) and order of summoning dated 10.07.2014.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner challenges the impugned order mainly on the ground that the same is without application of mind; the allegation made in the complaint does not constitute any offence and lastly, in view of Sections 468 and 469 of the Cr.P.C, the period of limitation is six months and the complaint is filed after the expiry of six months.

3. It is further submitted that in the instant case, the offence is punishable only with a fine, therefore, from the date of knowledge of the offence i.e., 24.06.2013, the complaint should have been filed within six months, however, in the instant case, it was filed on 10.07.2014, hence, it is barred by limitation. She has placed reliance on the following decisions:

(i) State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh1, (ii) Udai Shankar Awasthi v. State of U.P.2, (iii) State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi3, (iv) Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander4, (v) State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal5, (vi) S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath6, (vii) Jiyuan Li v. Registrar of Companies7,

1 (1981) 3 SCC 34 2 (2013) 2 SCC 435 3 (1972) 2 SCC 890 4 (2012) 9 SCC 460

5 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

6 (1994) 1 SCC 1

(viii) Sunair Hotels Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies8, (ix) Ranjit Mal Kastia v. Registrar of Companies9, (x) Krishna Sanghi v. State of M.P.10, (xi) N. Kumar v. M.O. Roy11, (xii) Mishra Dhathu Nigam Ltd. v. State12 and (xiii) AI Champdany Industries Limited v. Blancatex A.G.13

4. Besides the aforesaid, learned counsel submits that this court in its authoritative pronouncement dated 17.09.2015 in the case of Kavi Arora v. Registrar of Companies14, and other connected matters, has quashed the complaint on the ground of limitation. She explains that the decision dated 17.09.2015, deals with the cases of the Managing Director, Company Secretary, Ex-Whole Time Director and Director, etc. for whom the limitation was for one year and the present case relates to Statutory Auditor, therefore, the limitation period is six months. She states that except aforesaid, all other facts and the legal position is the same. According to her, this case is squarely covered by the said decision dated 17.09.2015 and the present complaint followed by the order of taking cognizance needs to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, Shri Ajay Digpaul, learned CGSC appearing on behalf of the respondents, opposes the submissions and states that in the instant case, the inspection of financial years 2009-10, 2010- 2011 to 2011-12, was done in the month of April 2013 and consequent thereto, an explanation to that effect was sought from the petitioner on 22.05.2013 and the report to that effect was submitted to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (hereinafter, referred as „MCA‟) on 24.06.2013.

7 2012 SCC OnLine Del 1299

8 2009 SCC OnLine Del 536

9 2002 SCC OnLine HP 60 10 1975 SCC OnLine MP 94

11 2007 SCC OnLine Mad 406 12 1997 SCC OnLine AP 1015 13 2011 SCC OnLine Cal 764

14 2015 SCC OnLine Del 12300

According to him, certain important aspects in the instant case have not been properly considered by this court in its earlier decision in the case of Kavi Arora (supra) which requires reconsideration. While placing heavy reliance on the decision of Udai Shankar Awasthi (supra), he states that the decision in the said case has not been properly understood by this court while deciding the controversy in the case of Kavi Arora (supra). He, therefore, while placing reliance on the decision of Udai Shankar Awasthi (supra) and State of Rajasthan v. Sanjay Kumar 15 submits that if both the decisions are understood in the right perspective, the conclusion recorded in the case of Kavi Arora (supra