Protection against apprehended prosecution under company law survives later complaints where alleged defaults are not culpable or mala fide.

A pending application under section 633(2) of the Companies Act was held not to be defeated by the Registrar's later filing of criminal complaints, because that provision is designed to protect officers against apprehended prosecution. The court also found that prosecution was not justified on the allegations under section 217, where the conduct appeared bona fide and the sums involved were insignificant, and under section 209(5), where the allegations were general and unspecific and corrective steps were already in progress. Complaint proceedings were, however, allowed to continue on the section 211 allegations where interference was declined.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application under section 633(2) of the Companies Act could be defeated by the Registrar's subsequent filing of criminal complaints; (ii) Whether prosecution was warranted on the allegations relatable to sections 217, 209(5) and 211 of the Companies Act.

Issue (i): Whether an application under section 633(2) of the Companies Act could be defeated by the Registrar's subsequent filing of criminal complaints.

Analysis: Section 633(1) was treated as operating once a prosecution had actually commenced, but section 633(2) was regarded as intended to protect officers where prosecution was merely apprehended. The petitioners had already invoked the court's jurisdiction under section 633(2) before the complaints were filed. The Registrar was expected to respect the policy reflected in the Company Law Board circular and should not have frustrated the pending relief proceedings by rushing to prosecute.

Conclusion: The subsequent filing of complaints did not nullify the petitioners' right to seek relief under section 633(2), and the application remained maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether prosecution was warranted on the allegations relatable to sections 217, 209(5) and 211 of the Companies Act.

Analysis: On the materials considered, the allegations under section 217 were found to involve bona fide conduct and insignificant amounts, so criminal prosecution was not considered justified. The allegations under section 209(5) were treated as general and unspecific, and the existing register and proposed corrective steps made prosecution unnecessary. As to section 211, several allegations were either vague, explained, or not shown to involve misappropriation or mala fides; however, the complaint was allowed to continue in respect of matters where the Court declined to interfere, including the Air India tickets issue and the broader allegations under section 211.

Conclusion: Prosecution was restrained under sections 217 and 209(5), while the complaint under section 211 was permitted to proceed.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded to the extent of preventing prosecution on the section 217 and section 209(5) allegations, but the section 211 complaint was left to proceed on the issues where interference was declined, so the matter was disposed of only in part in favour of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: A pending application under section 633(2) for relief against apprehended prosecution cannot be defeated by the subsequent institution of complaints, and prosecution should not be launched where the alleged defaults are not shown to involve culpable misfeasance, breach of duty, or mala fide conduct.

---