Prima facie wrongful withholding of company property justified continuation of criminal proceedings; quashing refused in revision.

A criminal revision challenging refusal to discharge was rejected where the complaint disclosed a prima facie case that a former director wrongfully withheld company property after cessation of office. The High Court noted that cognizance had been validly taken and process issued on prima facie materials, including allegations concerning a car and other articles, and held that the disputed factual foundation had to be tested at trial. It found no jurisdictional error or perversity in the discharge order and held that the cited precedents did not justify quashing on the facts. The proceedings were therefore allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal revisional application seeking quashing of the proceedings and setting aside of the discharge rejection order was maintainable on the ground that the ingredients of Section 452 of the Companies Act, 2013 were not made out against the petitioner.

Analysis: The complaint alleged that company property, including a car and other articles, had been wrongfully retained after cessation of the petitioner's directorship, and the Magistrate had already taken cognizance on prima facie materials and issued process. The petitioner relied on matrimonial discord and asserted that the proceedings were a counterblast, while the opposite party maintained that the petitioner continued to retain company property without authority. On the materials placed, the Court found prima facie support for the allegation of wrongful withholding at least in relation to the car, and held that the question whether the petitioner had wrongfully withheld the company's property required trial. The Court also held that the cited precedents did not justify quashing in the facts of the case and that no jurisdictional error or perversity was shown in the order rejecting discharge.

Conclusion: The challenge to the proceedings failed, and the petitioner was not entitled to quashing or discharge.

Final Conclusion: The criminal revisional application was held to be without merit and the proceedings were allowed to continue before the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a complaint discloses a prima facie case of wrongful withholding of company property and the Magistrate has validly taken cognizance and issued process, the High Court will not quash the proceedings in revision merely because the accused disputes the factual foundation and seeks a trial on the merits.

---