Puneet Jain vs Sebi & Anr.
2012 Latest Caselaw 4648 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  Crl.M.C.252/2011 & Crl.M.A. 19295/2011

                                  Decided on :    6th August, 2012

PUNEET JAIN                                   ..... Petitioner
                    Through:   Mr. Shubham Bhalla, Adv.

                         versus
SEBI & ANR.                                    ..... Respondents
                    Through:   Mr. Neeraj Malhotra, Adv. respondent
                               no.1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for

quashing of complaint bearing C.C. No.12/2009 under

Sections 24(1) and 27 of the Securities and Exchange

Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as

'Act').

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the

allegations made by the respondents in the complaint are

that the petitioner was a Director of a company which

had committed an offence under Sections 24(1) and 27

of the Act. The complaint pertains to non-compliance of

furnishing of information of the transactions of the

company dealing in plantation bonds and other valuable

securities.

3. The ground for quashing of the complaint, which has

been set up by the petitioner, is that he had been

appointed as a Director of the company in question in the

year 1997, but he has ceased to be the Director w.e.f.

9.9.1998. It has been stated that the petitioner had

tendered the resignation from the Directorship, which

was accepted by the Registrar of Companies w.e.f.

9.9.1998 and accordingly he could not be made

vicariously liable for the offence.

4. It has been further stated that in the year 2006, the

proceedings of the case were adjourned sine die and the

file was consigned to the Record Room and the same was

revived only in the year 2009. Therefore, it has been

submitted that there has been no inordinate delay in

filing the petition.

5. There is no dispute about the fact that the company was

incorporated on 7.10.1997. However, the said business

had failed to pickup, as a consequence of which the

petitioner had resigned from the Directorship. The

complaint was filed in the year 2004; the petitioner was

served notice and in the year 2005, he had put in

appearance and got himself bailed out but despite the

fact that the petitioner was aware of his defence, he

neither chose to file an application seeking his discharge

nor did he file a petition seeking quashing of the

proceedings against him. It was only belatedly in the

year 2011 that the petitioner has woken up from a deep

slumber and filed the present petition for quashing of the

complaint against him on the ground that though he was

the Director of the company in the year 1997, but he had

ceased to be so w.e.f. 9.9.1998 and accordingly prayed

for quashing of the complaint against him.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has

vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the

complaint on the ground that the petition has been filed

after an inordinate delay, for which no cogent

explanation has been given.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the

respective sides and gone through the records.

8. Although no period of limitation has been prescribed for

invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C., but the provision cannot be

treated as an open ended provision which can be invoked

by a party at any time. A person must invoke the

provision of Section 482 Cr.P.C. within a reasonable

period of time. The Law of Limitation prescribes the

period of limitation for filing an appeal within 60 days and

revision within 90 days. Accordingly, the petition under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. ought to have been filed within 90

days and if not certainly, it deserved to be filed within a

reasonable period of time. What would constitute

reasonable period of time would vary from case to case

and no straightjacket formula can be laid down in this

regard.

9. In the instant case, the petition for quashing has been

filed after considerable delay for which no explanation

has been given. The petitioner came to know about the

present proceedings in the year 2005 and he also knew

that he had ceased to be the Director, therefore, he was

aware of his case and he ought not have waited for so

long.

10. I, therefore, feel that the present petition is highly

belated and only an afterthought and, therefore, the

complaint cannot be quashed at this stage.

11. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

12. File be consigned to the Record Room.

V.K. SHALI, J.

August 06, 2012 tp