In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M- 34460 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 12 .01.2009 Harvinder Singh Chhatwal and another ......Petitioners Versus Registrar of Companies .......Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Sunil Chadha, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** SABINA, J. CRM No.60639-40 in CRM No.M 34460 of 2008 CRM No.60641-42 in CRM No.M 34461 of 2008 CRM No.60643-44 in CRM No.M 34462 of 2008 CRM No.60674-75 in CRM No.M 34487 of 2008 CRM No.60677-78 in CRM No.M 34489 of 2008 Applications are allowed as prayed for. Crl.Misc.No.M- 34460 of 2008 This order shall dispose of CRM Nos. M- 34460, 34461, 34462, 34487 and 34489 of 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that, in fact, six complaints were filed by the respondent against the petitioners. In one of the complainants, challenging the summoning order dated 12.3.2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, the petitioners had approached this Court by way of Criminal Misc. No.33777-M of 2008 decided on 22.12.2008. This Court while deciding the said Criminal Misc. has passed the following order:- “Through the instant petition, the petitioners have sought Crl.Misc.No.M- 34460 of 2008 (O&M) -2- 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 petitioners 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 read as under:- “Complaint presented today. It is registered, Summons be issued to the accused for 2.8.2007.” From the tenor and manner of the impugned order, it is emphatically clear 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 Crl.Misc.No.M- 34460 of 2008 (O&M) -3- 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.” Accordingly, all these petitions are disposed of in the same terms. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of each connected case. SABINA) JUDGE January 12, 2009 anita