Court No. - 79

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2413 of 2021

Applicant :- Mammon Concast Private Limited And 4 Others

Opposite Party :- Satte Of Up And Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Mahesh Chandra Tiwari,Kiran 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. 33 of 2019,

Registrar of Companies Vs. Mammon Concast Private Limited

and others, under Section 134(5) of the Companies Act, Police

Station Kamla Nagar, District Agra pending in the court of

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

208.02.2019.

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 without spe