Madras High Court
Balvinder Bajwa vs The Deputy Registrar Of Companies on 26 June, 2023
Crl.O.P.No.22334 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.O.P.No.22334 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.12120 & 12121 of 2021
Balvinder Bajwa ... Petitioner / Accused
-Vs-
The Deputy Registrar of Companies,
Tamil Nadu,
Having office at Shastri Bhavan,
26, Haddows Road,
Chennai – 600 006. ... Respondent / Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in E.O.C.C.No.464 of 2017
pending on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Economic Offences, Egmore, Chennai and to quash the same.
For Petitioner : Ms. Deepika Murali
For Respondent : Mr. S. Janarthanam, SPCGC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
Crl.O.P.No.22334 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the
proceedings in E.O.C.C.No.464 of 2017 pending on the file of the
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic Offences, Egmore,
Chennai, filed for the alleged offences under Section 165 read with
165(6) of the Companies Act, 2013.
2.It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioner had held office as
a Director in 96 Companies which exceeded the limit prescribed in Sub-
Section (1) of Section 165(3) of the Companies Act, 2013; and hence
guilty of the offence under Section 165 of the Companies Act, 2013.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner was prosecuted for the very same offence by the Registrar of
Companies, New Delhi. The petitioner had already faced trial in
C.C.No.532990 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate (Spl. Acts), Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and was
acquitted by judgment dated 28.02.2019; that the Registrar of Companies
had not challenged the said judgment and that had become final. In
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22334 of 2021
respect of the same set of facts the impugned complaint has been filed,
which is barred and would amount to double jeopardy. The learned
counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in any case the offence is
not made out, and the petitioner had complied with the provisions of the
Companies Act by resigning from the companies before the date, by
which he ought to have resigned viz., before 01.04.2015, and the
resignation had become effective, since he had despatched the letters to
the company on 22.08.2014. The learned counsel further submitted that
this fact also been recorded in the judgment rendered by the Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in C.C.No.532990 of 2016.
4.The learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondent would
submit that the records of the respondent show that the petitioner was the
Director of 96 companies. The companies concerned did not inform the
Registrar about the petitioner's resignation from their companies. Even if
the companies had not informed the same, the respondent ought to have
informed the Registrar of Companies as per Rule 16 of the Companies
Appointment Qualification of Directors Rules 2014. Since the petitioner
had not informed the respondent, the petitioner has to raise all the points
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22334 of 2021
before the trial Court and prayed for dismissal of the quash petition. The
learned Senior Panel Counsel, however fairly admitted that the
prosecution by the Registrar of Companies, New Delhi, ended in
acquittal in C.C.No. 532990 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate (Spl. Acts), New Delhi.
5.This Court is of the view that the impugned complaint is liable to
be quashed on the ground that there cannot be two complaints on the
same set of facts; one by the Registrar of Companies, New Delhi and
other by the respondent herein. The petitioner was tried and acquitted
for the same violation before the of the Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate (Spl. Acts), New Delhi in C.C.No.532990 of 2016 and the
impugned prosecution is therefore liable to be quashed on the ground
that it suffers from double jeopardy.
6.That apart this Court on facts also finds that the petitioner had
informed the companies concerned about the resignation and the same is
despatched on 22.08.2014 within the time provided under the amended
Act, which provided for an option to resign from the companies if the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22334 of 2021
number of directorship exceeded the limit. This fact has also been
recorded in the judgment of the of the Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate (Spl. Acts), Central, New Delhi in C.C.No.532990 of 2016. It
is also the fact that the Registrar of Companies, New Delhi, has not
challenged the said judgment and that has become final.
7.In view of the same, the impugned proceedings in
E.O.C.C.No.464 of 2017 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Economic Offences, Egmore, Chennai, is quashed.
Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently,
connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
26.06.2023
smv
Internet: Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22334 of 2021
To,
1.The Deputy Registrar of Companies,
Tamil Nadu,
Having office at Shastri Bhavan,
26, Haddows Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
2.The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Economic offence, Egmore, Chennai.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22334 of 2021
SUNDER MOHAN,J.
smv
Crl.O.P.No.22334 of 2021
26.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
