Alternative remedy and direct complaint principles barred parallel writ relief and upheld Magistrate cognizance on the complaint.

A writ petition under Article 226 was held inappropriate where the petitioner had already invoked a statutory revisional remedy concerning the same complaints, so parallel use of extraordinary jurisdiction was rejected. The document also states that the Registrar was competent to file complaints under the Companies Act, 1913, because nothing in that Act expressly or by necessary implication barred a direct complaint; the relevant provisions were enabling, not prohibitive. The Magistrate could validly take cognizance on the complaint under the Criminal Procedure Code, and the absence of a prior opportunity to the petitioner before filing the complaint did not vitiate jurisdiction or make the proceedings unlawful.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable when the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy and (ii) whether the Registrar's complaints and the Magistrate's cognizance of the offences were barred or otherwise vitiated by the Indian Companies Act, 1913 or by the absence of a prior opportunity to the petitioner.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable when the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy.

Analysis: The petitioner had already invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court in relation to the same complaints. In those circumstances, the extraordinary writ jurisdiction was not to be used as a parallel remedy, especially where the petitioner had an alternative statutory avenue that he was pursuing. The existence and invocation of that remedy made the writ relief inappropriate.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed.

Issue (ii): Whether the Registrar's complaints and the Magistrate's cognizance of the offences were barred or otherwise vitiated by the Indian Companies Act, 1913 or by the absence of a prior opportunity to the petitioner.

Analysis: Section 190(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code empowered the Magistrate to take cognizance on a complaint, and section 200(aa) dispensed with examination of the complainant on oath where the complainant was a public servant acting in discharge of official duties. Nothing in the Companies Act, 1913 expressly or by necessary intendment prohibited the Registrar from filing a complaint of offences under section 282. The provisions relied on by the petitioner, including sections 137, 138 and 141A, were enabling in character and did not create a statutory bar to direct complaint. The omission to give the petitioner a prior hearing before filing the complaints did not affect the Magistrate's jurisdiction or render the proceedings unlawful.

Conclusion: The Registrar was competent to lodge the complaints and the Magistrate validly took cognizance; the proceedings were not liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings challenged by the petitioner were held to be lawful, and both the writ and the criminal miscellaneous petitions failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Unless a statute expressly or by necessary implication bars a direct complaint, a public servant may file the complaint and the Magistrate may take cognizance under the Criminal Procedure Code; the absence of a prior opportunity before filing the complaint does not, by itself, invalidate the Magistrate's jurisdiction.

---