Court No. - 79

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1396 of 2021

Applicant :- Mammon Concast Private Limited And 4 Others

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Kiran Tiwari,Mahesh Chandra Tiwari

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vivek Rastogi, learned A.G.A.

for the State.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the

proceeding of complaint Case No. 26 of 2019, Registrar of Companies Vs.

Mammon Concast Private Limited and others, under Section 134 of the

Companies Act, 1956, Police Station Kamla Nagar, District Agra pending in the

court of Special C.J.M., Agra as well as the summoning order dated 20.02.2019.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the impugned summoning

order dated 20.02.2019 is a sketchy and cryptic order. He further submits that

the court below while summoning the applicants has materially erred and did not

follow the dictum of law as propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

various cases that summoning in criminal case is a serious matter and the court

below without dwelling into material and visualizing the case on the touchstone

of probability should not summon accused person to face criminal trial.

Learned counsel for the applicants has also placed reliance upon the order dated

01.10.2020 passed in Application u/s 482 No. 13895 of 2020 (Mammon

Concast Private Limited & 4 others Vs. State of U.P. & another). The said

order is extracted below:

"This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by Mammon Concast Private

Limited and others against State of U.P. and Registrar of Companies Uttar

Pradesh, Kanpur, with a prayer for quashing entire proceeding of complaint

Case No. 12 of 2019, Registrar of Companies Vs. Mammon Concast Private

Limited and others, u/s 291(1)(C) of Companies Act, P.S. Kamla Nagar, District

Agra, including summoning order dated 27.2.2019 passed by Special C.J.M.,

Agra, whereby the applicants have been summoned to face trial for the offences

punishable u/s 291(1)(C) of Companies Act.

Learned counsel for applicants argued that the impugned summoning order is a

sketchy order without specifying names of accused nor offence for which

summoning is there, and passed the cursory order as under:

"27.2.2019

Patrawali Pesh Huee. Parivadi May Vidwan Adhivakta Upasthit. Bahas

Sangyan Par Suna Evam Patrawali Ka Avlokan Kiya.

Uplabdh Sakshya Ke Aadhar Par Abhiyuktagan Ko Dhara 291(1)(C) Company

Act Ke Antargat Talab Kiya Jata Hai. Abhiyuktagan Ko Saman Dinank

11.4.2019 Ke Liye Jari Ho.

Sd/- Illigible.

Vishesh Mukhya Nyayik Magistrate, Agra."

As above, in other cases too summoning order was the same. In Application u/s

482 No. 12066 of 2020, M/s Agrawal Khandelwal and Associates Chartered

Accountants Vs. State of U.P. and another, order dated 22.7.2020 was passed by

a coordinate Bench of this Court, whereby the impugned summoning order was

quashed. Hence this application with above prayer.

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed.

From the very perusal of impugned summoning order it is apparent that the

summoning has been made u/s 291(1)(C) of Companies Act but neither the

name of the accused has been given nor their parentage has been given nor the

specific offence in which they been summoned is given. The complaint was with

prayer for summoning accused persons for offences punishable u/s 292(1)(C) of

the Companies Act for making defiance of provisions of Section 292(1)(C) of

Companies Act and penal clause is there in Companies Act u/s 292(1)(C) for

making defiance against the provisions of section 292(1)(C) of the Companies

Act regarding financial statement. Hence request was made for making

summoning of accused for offences punishable u/s 292(1)(C) of the Act and it

was with penal liability u/s 292(1)(C) of the Act, but the Magistrate has

summoned u/s 291(1)(C) of the Companies Act