ORDER
D.P. Singh, J.
1. Heard the learned Counsels for the petitioner and O.P. No. 2 As stated the petitioner Mukesh R. Gupta is the Chairman of the Lloyds Finance Ltd. Mumbai. Certain investments were made by the O.P. No. 2 in the company on assurance that the said company will return back principal amount with handsome interest. In the year 1998 to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs. O.P. No. 2 could manage this after retirement from his provident fund and other deposits. It is undisputed facts on record that the said finance company could not return the principal amount as well as the interest as promised within time. This lead to filing of the complaint petition No. 1087 of 2001. After enquiry the learned Court below took cognizance on 11.2.2003 in this case and issued summon for appearance of the petitioners as well as others who were activety participating in the affairs of the company.
2. Thereafter the present petition is preferred by the accused persons stating therein that the petitioners are not liable to be prosecuted as per provisions under Section 305 of the Cr PC as the corporate or registered society cannot be prosecuted unless the erring company has opportunity to choose the persons to be prosecuted. I find that this submission is without any basis and logic.
3. The company is represented through the chairman and its board of directors. It has already been held in several decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court that company is a legal person represented through its chairman and the board of directors. The petitioner admittedly is the chairman of the company.
4. The learned Counsel Sri J.K. Pasari further submits that after the cognizance, the petitioner as well as others have tried to settle the dispute and certain amounts were paid even before filing of the complaint. Therefore, the present prosecution should not proceed as only Rs. 13066/- as due with the company. It is further submitted that the dues may be paid to the O.P. No. 2 after order by the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the long binding up process of the company.
5. I find that this plea has no basis. The winding up process of the company could take years. At this stage, I am informed by the learned Counsel on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 that, the father of the complainant died during the pendency of this petition without treatment for lack of funds.
6. In such view of the facts. I do not find any ground to interfere with the cognizance taking order and to quash the proceeding. If the parties choose to settle the dispute that can be decided by the trial Court at appropriate stage in accordance with law.
7. Accordingly, this application is disposed of.