Criminal Misc.-M No.32456 of 2011 (O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: December 12, 2011 Manjit Singh Aujla ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Virendra Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of FIR No.37 dated 7.3.2004 registered at Police Station, Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala under Sections 420, 120-B and 406 IPC on a complaint made by respondent No.2. On 3.10.1991, M/s Incan Mutual Benefit Ltd. was incorporated under Companies Act. On 25.4.1995, Col.B.M.Bhagi (Retd.) was appointed as Managing Director of the said company. The company had carried on its business till it was liquidated. From 3.10.1991 to 1997, the company is stated to have made profits and was in a good financial position. On 1.4.1997, the petitioner resigned from the Directorship/Chairmanship of the company. In the year Criminal Misc.-M No.32456 of 2011 (O&M) : 2 : 2004, the company was accused of mismanagement and pushed itself into losses. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on the basis of which the above-said FIR was registered against the petitioner as well. The grievance is that petitioner was wrongly shown as Managing Director in the year 1999.The petitioner, however, states that he never met the complainant and only the Branch Manager and three other persons stated that he was the Managing Director in the year 1999. Petitioner was not the Chairman of the said company in 1999. Accordingly, the petitioner claims that he has been falsely implicated. As per the petitioner, he had resigned on 1.4.1997. The co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Satnam Singh and Paramjit Kaur have already been discharged by the Judicial Magistrate on 4.2.2009. The petitioner accordingly filed this petition for quashing of the FIR on the grounds that the FIR is registered seven years ago and petitioner is being unnecessarily harassed and humiliated for no fault. He claims that he has been falsely implicated. As per the petitioner, the complaint does not make out any case worth the name against the petitioner. Investigation was made from the petitioner where he made a statement before the police. Petitioner has averred that this investigation would show his innocence. It is also stated that Col.B.M.Bhagi, who was Managing Director, would only be responsible person. Besides, it is pleaded that the co-accused have been discharged. The factual basis on which the petitioner has based his claim for quashing the FIR will have to be established before the Court. Concededly, the petitioner was earlier proclaimed offender Criminal Misc.-M No.32456 of 2011 (O&M) : 3 : and has not appeared before the court. If the petitioner is not involved and has no role to play, the trial Court would equally be competent to look into this aspect and like his co-accused discharge him, if no case is made out against him. The submission that the petitioner had resigned w.e.f. 1.4.1997 again would have to be established. Whether this is a genuine resignation or one which is just made up to show for record will have to be proved and then the effect thereof can be taken into consideration. The mere fact that the company is in liquidation may not be enough to relieve the petitioner of his personal liability in this case. In any case, the petitioner is accused of offences under Sections 420, 120-B and 406 IPC and other criminal offences. The liquidation of company in such like cases, in my view, would not have any material affect on the prosecution. The reference made by the counsel for the petitioner to M.A.A.Annamalai v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2011 Crl.L.J. 692 was in respect of a company, which had been permitted to operate under licence granted by the Reserve Bank of India and was carrying out lawful activity. In the facts and circumstances of that case, the Director, who was being prosecuted, was let off as he had concededly resigned. The present one is not a case parallel to the one which was before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. That was a case of mutual benefit fund. The petitioner in this case is wanting to escape responsibility primarily on the ground that he was not the Chairman and that management and the affairs of the company were being done by the Managing Director. The responsibility so far as cheating Criminal Misc.-M No.32456 of 2011 (O&M) : 4 : and criminal breach of trust is concerned would have to be shown on the basis of evidence. If there is no evidence that has also to be pleaded before the trial Court. I do not find it to be a fit case to invoke jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. For quashing of this FIR. The petitioner is accordingly dismissed. December 12, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE