Court quashes complaint due to lack of criminality and procedural compliance.

The court allowed the Criminal Original Petition, quashing the complaint in Spl. C.C. No. 2 of 2021 pending before the XVI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. The court found that the allegations did not constitute criminal offences under the Indian Penal Code and that procedural compliance under the Companies Act, 2013 was lacking. The court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to prevent abuse of process and miscarriage of justice, ultimately leading to the quashing of the complaint.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the complaint under Sections 447 and 452 of the Companies Act, 2013.
2. Alleged offences under Sections 415, 403, 405, 408, 425, 378, and 120 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Jurisdiction and procedural compliance under the Companies Act, 2013.
4. Applicability of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Summary:

Issue 1: Quashing of the complaint under Sections 447 and 452 of the Companies Act, 2013
The petitioner sought to quash the complaint alleging offences under Sections 447 and 452 of the Companies Act, 2013. The court found that the offence under Section 452, which is quasi-criminal, was intended to provide a speedy remedy for retrieving company property. Since the petitioner had returned the laptop on 24.08.2021, the court held that prosecution under Section 452 was not maintainable. Regarding Section 447, the court noted that the prescribed procedure under Chapter XIV of the Act, involving the Registrar of Companies and the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), was not followed. Specifically, Section 212(6)(ii) mandates that the Special Court shall not take cognizance of the offence except on a complaint by the Director of SFIO or an authorized officer of the Central Government. Since this procedure was not adhered to, the complaint under Section 447 was also deemed not maintainable.

Issue 2: Alleged offences under Sections 415, 403, 405, 408, 425, 378, and 120 of the Indian Penal Code
The court found that the allegations did not constitute the offences under the Indian Penal Code. For instance, there was no deception at the inception to attract Section 415 (cheating). The allegations of theft, criminal breach of trust, and misappropriation were deemed vague. The court emphasized that to allege theft, it must be shown that the complainant was deprived of the property, which was not the case here as the confidential information was intangible and still available with the complainant. The court concluded that the allegations, at best, could make the petitioner civilly liable but did not constitute criminal offences.

Issue 3: Jurisdiction and procedural compliance under the Companies Act, 2013
The court highlighted the detailed mechanism provided under Chapter XIV of the Companies Act for investigating offences, which involves the Registrar of Companies and the SFIO. The court reiterated that the Special Court could not take cognizance of the offence under Section 447 without a complaint from the Director of SFIO or an authorized officer. The non-compliance with this statutory procedure rendered the complaint unsustainable.

Issue 4: Applicability of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code
The court acknowledged the wide powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process and miscarriage of justice. The court noted that the complaint did not disclose the alleged offences and that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of process. Consequently, the court exercised its inherent powers to quash the complaint.

Conclusion:
The Criminal Original Petition was allowed, and the complaint in Spl. C.C. No. 2 of 2021, pending before the XVI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, was quashed. The connected Miscellaneous Petition was also closed.

---