IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7580 of 2009 Vijay Prasad, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of M/S I.D.I.O. Construction and Industries (India) Limited, Kumar Bhawan, Bandar Bagicha, Frazer Road, Patna (its registered office). ………Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Region, Patna. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Patna. 5. The Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Patna. 6. The Officer Incharge, Kotwali Police Station, Patna. 7. Manoj Kumar Chandel, S/o Sri Krishnanand Singh, Road No. 23, Flat No. 176, Sri Krishna Nagar, Patna, P.S. Budha Colony, District- Patna. ………Opposite Parties. For the petitioner :- Mr. Shabbir Ahmad, Advocate. Mr. Shambhu S. N. Singh, Advocate. For O.P. No. 7 :- Mr. Shambhu Dayal, Senior Advocate. For the State :- Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. For the Vigilance :- Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate. ----------- 14. 23. 03. 2011. Heard. 1. This is a petition for quashing the proceeding of Kotwali P.S. Case No. 164/2005 dated 29. 04.2005 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 628, 629 (A) of the Companies Act, 1956 lodged under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. on the basis of the Complaint Case No. 271 (C)/2005 filed by the complainant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that allegation made in the complaint petition itself on the 2 basis of which F.I.R. has been lodged does not makes out an offence. It is alleged in para 10 of the complaint petition that accused person prepared a false and fake document with malafide intention in Form No. 32 and Form No. 29 under Section 303 (2) and 266 respectively of the Companies Act, 1956 is quite vague without assigning any act or omission which constitute the offence. It has further been contended that petitioner being a member amongst the Board of Directors filed the Form 32 and Form 29 before the Registrar of the Company and hence contends that a dispute makes out is with regard to the dispute about member of Board of Directors then it is civil dispute. Hence contends that dispute really with regard to formation, management and business of the company and the criminal court has no jurisdiction to decide who is Director or Board of Directors and hence the matter mainly concerned with civil dispute with regard to office holder of the Board of Directors. 3. Learned counsel for the State and O.P. however contends that Final Form has already been submitted in this case holding that the case is a of a civil nature and contends that petition has become infructuous 3 in view of Final Form has been submitted. 4. Having regard to the fact that Final Form has already been submitted hence the petition become infructuous. However, if learned counsel for the petitioner apprehends that a protest petition may be filed and hence if the protest petition is filed and cognizance taken then petitioner may raise issue before this Court. 5. This criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed as infructuous. m.p. ( Gopal Prasad, J.)