1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.33777-M of 2008. Date of Decision: 22.12.2008. *** Harvinder Singh Chhatwal & Anr. .. Petitioners Vs. Registrar of Companies. .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the petitioners. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Through the instant petition, the petitioners have sought quashing of Criminal Complaint dated 12.3.2007 titled as Registrar of Companies Vs. M/s Parteet Cycles Ltd. & Ors., filed under Section 159 read with Section 162 of the Companies Act, 1956 and also the order of even date passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar whereby the Court below has issued notice to them to appear before the Court in the said complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset have contended that the petitioners are mainly aggrieved with the order dated 12.3.2007, as referred to above, since the same is not only a non-speaking one but also indicative of non-application of mind by the learned Magistrate. The order dated 12.3.2007 reads as under:- “Complaint presented today. It be registered, Summons be issued to the accused for 2.8.07.” From the tenor and manner of the impugned order, it is emphatically clear 2 that none had been discussed or considered by the learned Magistrate while issuing process against the petitioners. Though the complaint was obviously filed by the complainant in the official capacity, but it was incumbent upon the Court to give adequate reasons for issuing process against the opposite party and not in a casual way, as and when any such complaints are filed. Even there is no reflection in the impugned order as to contravention of which provisions of Companies Act, the process has been issued against the petitioners. Thus, the order is a non-speaking one and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 12.3.2007 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court below with a direction that it shall pass orders afresh in the complaint, after hearing the complainant, on merits and without being influenced from any observation made hereinabove. The petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations, but without issuance of notice to the respondent, since it has to incur huge expenses to defend this litigation. However, a liberty is given to the respondent to file an application for recalling of the order, in case of any dis-satisfaction. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE December 22,2008 Jiten