Court orders Registrar to file complaint under CrPC & IPC against respondents before Magistrate, emphasizing impartial handling.

The court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to file a complaint under Section 340(1) of the CrPC, along with Sections 191, 193, and 209 of the IPC, against the respondents before a Magistrate. The Magistrate was instructed to handle the complaint impartially, without influence from the court's preliminary inquiry observations.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of false statements and perjury under Sections 191, 192, 193, and 209 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
2. Collusion and fraudulent admission of liability leading to a winding-up order.
3. Authority and legitimacy of the applicant's representation.
4. Applicability and interpretation of Sections 340 and 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegations of False Statements and Perjury:
The applicant filed a company application seeking a direction to register a complaint against Sri Samson Arthur and Sri N. Chandrasekhar Rao under Sections 191, 192, 193, and 209 of the IPC. The applicant contended that both individuals wrongfully admitted the liability of the applicant-company towards the petitioner, leading to a winding-up order based on false claims. The applicant highlighted discrepancies in the affidavits filed by these individuals, which contradicted the audit reports and other financial documents, suggesting falsehood and suppression of material facts.

2. Collusion and Fraudulent Admission of Liability:
The applicant alleged that there was collusion between the petitioner and the respondents, leading to the wrongful admission of liability and the subsequent winding-up order. The court noted that the affidavit filed by Sri N. Chandrasekhar Rao on June 13, 2012, falsely stated that the applicant-company had no assets and was not operating, despite audit reports showing substantial assets. Similarly, Sri Samson Arthur's counter affidavit falsely attributed non-payment to financial difficulties, contradicting earlier statements and financial documents.

3. Authority and Legitimacy of the Applicant's Representation:
Respondents argued that the authority of Mr. Robert Dix to file the present application was defective due to the absence of properly authorized and executed documents. They contended that the dispute related to non-payment of contractual dues and that the agreement's validity was not disputed. The court, however, found that Robert Dix was authorized to represent the applicant-company, as evidenced by the authorization dated May 22, 2013, and other supporting documents.

4. Applicability and Interpretation of Sections 340 and 344 of the CrPC:
The court examined the provisions of Sections 340 and 344 of the CrPC. It clarified that Section 344 allows a Court of Session or Magistrate to take cognizance of an offense if a witness knowingly gives false evidence. However, Section 340(1) empowers any court to conduct a preliminary inquiry and make a complaint if it is expedient in the interest of justice. The court emphasized that Section 340(1) is an independent provision and can be invoked irrespective of Section 344. The court found that the affidavits filed by the respondents contained false statements, constituting an offense under Sections 191, 193, and 209 of the IPC.

Conclusion:
The court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to depute an officer to file a complaint under Section 340(1) of the CrPC, read with Sections 191, 193, and 209 of the IPC, against the respondents before a Magistrate. The Magistrate was instructed to handle the complaint as per law, uninfluenced by the court's observations made during the preliminary inquiry.

---