High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Vikram Aditya Devate vs The Registrar Of Companies on 7 October, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Vikram Aditya Devate vs The Registrar Of Companies on 7 October, 2009
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
IN THE HIGH COURT on KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 7"' day of October, 2909
Before
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH

Criminal Petitions I195 / 2008 CM 1196 / 2008

Between:

Sri Vikram Aditya Devate

R/a # 637, III Cross, I C Main

K G Layout, BSK III Stage common
Bangalore 560 085 Petitioner

(By Sri Venkatesh R Bhagat, Adv.)

And:

Registrar of Companies

11 Floor, E Wing, Kendriya Sadan common
Koramangala, Bangalore 560 034 Respondent

(By Sri T M Venkata Reddy, CGSC)

These Criminal Petitions are filed under S.482 of the Cr.PC praying to
quash the order dated 26.11.2007 in CC 1021/2007 & CC 1022/2007 by the
Sp] Court (Economic Offences), Bangalore.

These Criminal Petitions coming on for Admission this day, the Court
made the following: 



ORDER

These two petitions have been filed seeking for quashing the
proceedings initiated by the Special Court (Economic Offences), Bangalore in

CC 1021/2007 and CC 1022/2007.

Alieging non filing of the returns within stipulated time by the

Company, petitioner as well as the other two persons viz., accused 1 company

and one more person have been charge sheeted.

According to the petitioner’s counsel, although it is averred in the

complaint that three persons are responsible, but as per S.5 of the Companies
Act, only the person in charge of the affairs of the company should be made
liable. Petitioner though is a Nominal Director holding Rs.lOO/– share, the 1″‘
and 2″” accused are the Company and the Managing Director. The company

alone could be made liable and not this petitioner.

In View of the submission made and the allegation against the
petitioner, proceedings against this petitioner could be quashed since accused 1

and 2 are available to be prosecuted if there is any lapse.

$(,,»/

Accordingly, petitions are allowed. Proceedings in so far as this

petitioner is concerned is quashed

An