Fraud allegations over dividend declaration failed where the complaint lacked specific facts to sustain director liability and criminal process.

A complaint alleging fraudulent declaration of dividend did not disclose the ingredients of fraud, because it lacked specific averments of deceitful conduct or material showing that the dividend resolution itself was fraudulent; the fraud allegation therefore could not sustain proceedings under the Companies Act. The complaint also failed to plead the individual role, capacity, or participation of the directors and officers, so vicarious criminal liability could not be fastened merely from their designations. As the allegations were vague, did not show a prima facie case, and reflected an abuse of process, the criminal proceedings were quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complaint disclosed the ingredients of fraud so as to attract Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 for declaration of dividend by the company. (ii) Whether the complaint contained the necessary averments to fasten vicarious criminal liability on the directors and officers, and whether the proceedings were liable to be quashed as an abuse of process.

Issue (i): Whether the complaint disclosed the ingredients of fraud so as to attract Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 for declaration of dividend by the company.

Analysis: The allegation rested on declaration of dividend by the company in the general meeting and on the supposed contravention of the dividend provisions under the Companies Act. The complaint did not set out any specific fraudulent act, deceitful conduct, or material showing that the resolution declaring dividend itself amounted to fraud. The order notes that even if there was a dispute about compliance with dividend-related provisions, that by itself would not establish fraud unless the essential ingredients of fraud were pleaded and prima facie shown.

Conclusion: The ingredients of fraud were not made out, and Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 was not attracted.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaint contained the necessary averments to fasten vicarious criminal liability on the directors and officers, and whether the proceedings were liable to be quashed as an abuse of process.

Analysis: Criminal liability of directors or officers of a company cannot be presumed merely because of their designation. The complaint was found to be vague as to the specific role, capacity, and participation of each accused in the alleged offence. The order applies the settled principle that vicarious liability must be specifically pleaded and shown, and that a Magistrate must apply independent judicial mind before taking cognizance. The proceedings were also found to be attended with mala fides and did not disclose a prima facie case warranting continuation.

Conclusion: The complaint failed to establish vicarious liability, and the criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution was held unsustainable and the criminal proceedings were set aside as an abuse of the criminal process.

Ratio Decidendi: A complaint against company directors or officers must specifically plead the ingredients of the offence and the factual basis for vicarious liability; absent a prima facie case of fraud or such specific averments, proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are liable to be quashed.

---