IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-8513 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: September 19, 2011 Kanwar Deep Singh & another .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Registrar of Companies & another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Shekhar Verma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. G.S. Hooda, Advocate, for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. prays for quashing complaint No.32 dated 9.5.2006 (Annexure P-1) under Section 58-A(2), (a) & (c), (3A) and 4 of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Rules 3(1A) and 10 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975 (for short, ‘Rules’); and summoning order dated 9.5.2006 (Annexure P-2). Crl. Misc. No. M-8513 of 2011 [2] 2. Gist of the allegations against the petitioners is that the petitioners took fixed deposit loan during the period 1998-99. The amount was to be returned in 2001-02. The amount was not returned. 3. Under the Rules, return was required to be filed in regard to deposits taken by a company and amount returned. 4. In substance, it has been pleaded that the account of the petitioners was frozen vide order dated 5.7.2001 by a Court of Metropolitan Magistrate in Kolkata. Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. were filed. Vide order dated 8.10.2002 (Annexure P-7), the High Court at Kolkata enabled the fixed deposit amount to be released through a medium provided by that Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that it is not in dispute that the amount has been released and none of the depositors has come before any Court to claim the amount. 6. It has been pointed out that returns were filed late, with late fee. Learned counsel further states that at best, it is a technical offence, inviting a penalty only. 7. It has been pointed out that the petitioners earlier approached this Court for quashing proceedings by way of filing Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-19565 of 2008. This Court, vide order dated 5.12.2008 (Annexure P-3) allowed the petition to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner(s) to raise all the issues Crl. Misc. No. M-8513 of 2011 [3] before the Trial Court. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in accordance with law and liberty granted to the petitioners, an application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. was filed praying for discharge of the petitioner-accused. The application has not been dealt with by the Court till date. 9. In my considered opinion, while the application of the petitioners for discharge is pending adjudication before the Trial Court, it would not be appropriate to quash the proceedings. Such an application has already been filed, as noticed above. 10. The petition is accordingly disposed of with directions to the Trial Court to hear the parties and pass an order as required by law and facts, on the application filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-4) within a period of 2 months of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (AJAI LAMBA) September 19, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?