Criminal complaint authorisation and mandatory pre-summoning examination under CrPC led to quashing of the summoning order.

A criminal complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 was held vulnerable where the board resolution authorising its institution was itself under challenge and the complaint had been filed despite earlier status quo orders. The Court also treated examination of the complainant on oath under Section 200 CrPC as mandatory, and found the defect in the pre-summoning process could not be dismissed as a mere defence on these facts. The complaint and summoning order were quashed, and further proceedings were stayed pending determination of the validity of the board resolution.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal complaint and the summoning order under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 were liable to be quashed where the board resolution authorising the complaint was itself under challenge and the complainant was not examined in accordance with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: A complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 may ordinarily proceed notwithstanding parallel civil disputes, and the defence of the accused is generally not to be considered at the stage of quashing. However, the present case turned on the validity of the very authorisation for filing the complaint. The board resolution relied upon for institution of the complaint was under dispute in pending civil proceedings, and the Court found that the complaint had been filed in the face of the earlier status quo orders. The Court also held that the requirement under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to examine the complainant on oath is mandatory, and the defect in the pre-summoning process could not be treated as a mere defence in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The complaint and the summoning order were quashed and further proceedings were stayed pending determination of the validity of the board resolution.

---