IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 20.03.2025 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI Crl.O.P.No.26382 & 26384 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.Nos.16281, 16278, 16283 & 16284 of 2022 Ramanathan Nachiappan ... Petitioner in both Crl.O.P.s Versus The Deputy Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu, Having office at Shastri Bhavan, No.26, Haddows Road, Chennai-600 006. ... Respondent in both Crl.O.P.s PRAYER in Crl.O.P.No. 26382 of 2022 : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the proceedings in E.O.C.C.No.238 of 2013 on the file of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-I, Economic Offences, Egmore, Chennai-8 examine them and to quash the complaint in so far as the petitioner is concerned.

PRAYER in Crl.O.P.No. 26384 of 2022 : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the proceedings in E.O.C.C.No.237 of 2013 on the file of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-I, Economic Offences, Egmore, Chennai-8 examine them and to quash the complaint in so far as the petitioner is concerned.

For Petitioner in : Mr.H.Karthik Seshadri, both Crl.O.P.s assisted by Mr.C.Suraj for Mr.A.M.Elango For Respondent in : Mr.A.R.Sakthivel, both Crl.O.P.s Special Public Prosecutor

COMMON ORDER

The petitioner had filed these Criminal Original Petitions praying to quash the proceedings in E.O.C.C.Nos. 238 & 237 of 2013 on the file of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-I, Economic Offences, Egmore, Chennai respectively in so far as this petitioner concerned against the respondent.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The respondent herein is the Deputy Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu. The respondent filed the complaints against the 1^st accused company viz., Agnite Education Limited alleging that the company had not complied with statutory filing i.e. non-filing of balance sheet for the financial year ending 2011 within the stipulated period i.e. on or before 30.10.2011 and 30.11.2011 as specified under Secs.162 of Companies Act respectively. The accused 2 to 4 are Directors of the Company, being the officers, they are in default by not complying the statutory requirement as specified under Sec.220 of Companies Act. Hence, the respondent filed complaints before the Magistrate Court praying to issue summons to the accused and punish them according to law for the above said default. 4. Challenging the said complaints, now the petitioner, who is named as 2^nd accused in the said complaint, preferred these petitions to quash the proceedings. The petitioner contended that he was only a Company Secretary of the default company, since his appointment from the year of 2012 and he has resigned from the said company with effect from 31.05.2012, but he was named as one of the Secretary as per the complaints filed by the respondent as such is incorrect one. Further, he would submit that the respondent had suppressed regarding the factum of extension of financial year granted to the 1^st accused company with respect to the financial year ending 2011 until 30.09.2011 and also suppressed regarding the factum of extension to conduct annual general meeting to the 1^st accused company with respect to the financial year ending 2011 for the period of three months i.e. upto 30.03.2012. Therefore, the company has not committed any default, since already time was extended. Accordingly, the balance sheet for the financial year of 2011 ought to have been filed on 30.10.2011, but the time was extended only upto 30.09.2011, however, he has resigned from the company on 31.05.2012. Therefore, the 1^st accused company cannot be said to have committed default of non-filing of annual returns with the respondent on the alleged date of offence i.e. on 30.10.2011. The time is extended upto 30.03.2012 and within 30 days from the annual general meeting, the balance sheet of the company ought to have been filed, hence, they have not committed any offence