Vikram Bakshi & Ors. v. State & Ors.

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 03.12.2009 whereby the Trial Court has taken cognizance under Sections 177/182/199/200/468/ 471/197/198 read with 628/283(2)A/630 of the Companies Act, on the criminal complaint filed by respondent Nos.[2] & 3 as also the company M/s. Montreaux Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and summoned the 2019:DHC:3376 petitioners.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that in the absence of a complaint in writing in terms of Section 195 Cr.P.C, the Trial Court could not have taken cognizance of the offences under Section 177/182 IPC. He further submits that in so far as other offences of forgery as well as filing and use of false documents is concerned, there was no material before the Trial Court in the form of report of an expert opining that the signatures of the complainant, respondent No. 2, Ms. Sonia Khosla were forged.

3. He further submits that the Trial Court had erred in holding that the signatures of the complainant, respondent No.2, Ms. Sonia Khosla on the two minutes of the meetings were forged, whereas there are no signatures of hers on the said minutes.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the Trial Court order is a non speaking order in so far as the subject offences are concerned and the petitioners have been summoned without the Trial Court returning even a prima facie finding as to how each of the sections are attracted.

5. Respondent No.3 who appears in person submits that in so far as offences under Sections 177 and 182 IPC are concerned, said sections were erroneously invoked and in terms of Section 621 Companies Act, 1956, they were not liable to be invoked and the Trial Court erred in not noticing the legal provision while summoning the petitioners for the offences under Sections 177 and 182 IPC.

6. It may be noticed that respondent No.2, Ms. Sonia Khosla has passed away during the pendency of these proceedings.

7. After some arguments, learned counsel for the parties agree that the impugned order dated 03.12.2009 be set aside with the following directions:-

(i) Impugned order dated 03.12.2009 is set aside;

(ii) The matter is remitted to the Trial Court with the liberty to respondent No.3 to produce additional evidence/material if any within a period of one week from the date fixed by the Trial Court;

(iii) The complainant shall appear before the Trial Court on

27.07.2019, for directions for fixing an appropriate date, within one week, permitting respondent No. 3 to produce additional material as aforesaid permitted.

(iv) The Trial Court shall revisit the proceedings and pass a fresh reasoned order, within a period of one month thereafter, on the basis of existing material as also the fresh material, if any brought on record by respondent No. 3;

(v) The Trial Court shall expedite the proceedings and endeavour to pass a fresh speaking order within a period of one month of the respondent No.3 producing such additional material.

(vi) It is open to the Trial Court to pass a fresh order on the material existing on record as also the material that would be brought on record, summoning or declining to summon the petitioners, without being influenced by anything stated in this order.

(vii) In case the Trial Court is inclined to summon the accused, he shall expedite the proceeding. It is, however, clarified that there is no mandate issued to the Trial Court to pass a summoning order. It would be open to the Trial Court to pass an appropriate order based on the facts and circumstances of the case.