Petitioner's Appeal Denied in Criminal Case, Liability as Director Under Companies Act

The Court upheld the rejection of the petitioner's application seeking quashment of the order in Criminal Case No. SC/128/2016, emphasizing the petitioner's required presence in the proceedings. It dismissed the plea to quash the criminal proceedings, determining the petitioner's liability as a Director with knowledge of the company's activities. The Court clarified the jurisdiction of the Special Court under the Companies Act, 2013, and found the petitioner fell within the scope of liability under relevant sections. The petition was dismissed, emphasizing that the petitioner's status and liability would be determined during trial without influencing the proceedings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Quashment of the order dated 28/7/2022 in Criminal Case No. SC/128/2016.
2. Quashment of the criminal proceedings in Criminal Complaint No. SC/128/2016.
3. Determination of the petitioner's status as Non-executive Independent Director and its implications.
4. Jurisdiction of the Special Court under the Companies Act, 2013.
5. Applicability of Sections 2(60), 2(51), 149(12), and 74(3) of the Companies Act, 2013.
6. Scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashment of the Order Dated 28/7/2022 in Criminal Case No. SC/128/2016:
The petitioner sought the quashment of the order dated 28/7/2022, which rejected his application under Section 317 read with Section 205 of Cr.P.C. The Court found no error in the lower court's decision and upheld the rejection of the application, indicating that the petitioner's presence was required in the proceedings.

2. Quashment of the Criminal Proceedings in Criminal Complaint No. SC/128/2016:
The petitioner sought to quash the criminal proceedings against him, arguing that he was a Non-executive Independent Director and not liable for the company's defaults. The Court dismissed this plea, stating that the petitioner was indeed a Director and had knowledge of the company's activities, including the acceptance of deposits.

3. Determination of the Petitioner's Status as Non-executive Independent Director and Its Implications:
The petitioner claimed he was a Non-executive Independent Director and thus not liable for the company's defaults. However, the Court found that the petitioner's designation had been changed from Additional Director to Director, making him aware of the company's activities. The Court noted that the petitioner's status could only be conclusively determined through evidence presented at trial.

4. Jurisdiction of the Special Court under the Companies Act, 2013:
The Court addressed the issue of jurisdiction, noting that the Special Court under Section 435 of the Companies Act, 2013, was constituted to entertain and decide prosecutions under the Act. The CJM had returned the complaint to the complainant due to the Special Court's jurisdiction, and the Special Court subsequently took cognizance of the complaint.

5. Applicability of Sections 2(60), 2(51), 149(12), and 74(3) of the Companies Act, 2013:
The petitioner argued that he was not an "Officer who is in default" under Section 2(60) and not a Key Managerial Personnel under Section 2(51). The Court found that the petitioner, as a Director, fell within the scope of Section 2(60) and was liable under Section 74(3) for the company's defaults. The Court emphasized that the determination of the petitioner's liability required a detailed examination of evidence at trial.

6. Scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C.:
The Court highlighted the limited scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., particularly when the facts were disputed. The Court noted that the petitioner's claims were outrightly disputed by the respondents and supported by documents. Therefore, it was not an exceptional case warranting interference under Section 482.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner's status and liability should be determined at trial. The observations made were for arriving at a prima facie conclusion and should not influence the trial proceedings. The petition was found to lack merit, and the trial was to proceed on its own merits.

---