IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12947 of 2009 JATADHARI PAL, Son of Late Nimaichand Pal, resident of Near Pootki Thana, Kusunda, P.S. Pootki, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand. .....Petitioner. Versus 1. The Union of India, through the Registrar of Companies, Bihar and Jharkhand, Mourya Lok, 4th Floor, A-Block, Dak Banglow Road, Patna-1. 2. The Registrar of Companies, Bihar and Jharkhand, Murya Lok, 4th Floor, A-Block, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna-1.....Opposite Parties. with Cr.Misc. No.12948 of 2009 JATADHARI PAL, Son of Late Nimaichand Pal, resident of Near-Pootki Thana, Kusunda, P.S. Pootki, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand..................................................................Petitioner. Versus 1. Union of India, through the Registrar of Companies, Bihar and Jharkhand, Mourya Lok, 4th Floor, A-Block, Dak Banglow Road, Patna-1, P.S. Kotwali, District- Patna. 2. The Registrar of Companies, Bihar and Jharkhand, Mourya Lok 4th Floor, A-Block, Dak Banglow Road, Patna-1, P. S. Kotwali, District-Patna........................................................Opposite Parties. ----------- 3. 13.01.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India. These applications have been filed for quashing the order dated 31.07.2007 passed in Complaint Case No. 401 ( C ) of 2007 by which the court has taken cognizance for offence under Section 162 (1) of the Companies Act and the order dated 31.07.2007 passed in Complaint Case No. 400( C ) of 2007 by which the court has taken cognizance under Section 220(3) of the Companies Act. The facts of these cases in brief are that the petitioner was erstwhile Director of M/S. Satyoday Savings & Investment Co. Ltd. It is alleged that this Company has not filed its return since March 2 1992 to March 2006. These two complaints have been instituted on all the Directors of the Company. The petitioner does not deny that he was the Director of the company but it is submitted that he was the Director of the said Company for the period i.e. between 09.04.1991 to 25.07.1991. The petitioner has resigned thereafter and submitted his resignation to the Registrar of the Companies, on 06.08.1992 at Maurya Lok Complex, Patna, which has been accepted by the Registrar of the Companies. In view of the fact that the petitioner was the Director for a very limited period of three months and, therefore, liability with respect to the offence under Section 162(1) and 220(3) of the Companies Act can not be fixed against the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid facts, the impugned order of cognizance dated 31. 07.2007 passed in Complaint Case No. 401(C ) of 2007 and the order dated 31.07.2007 passed in Complaint Case No. 400 (C ) of 2007 are quashed so far the petitioners are concerned. These applications are, accordingly, allowed. U.K. (Sheema Ali Khan,J)