CRL.M.C.--2994/2016. Case: DEEPAK KHOSLA Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | CRL.M.C.--2994/2016 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | August 09, 2019 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
$~47
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 09.08.2019
+ CRL.M.C. 2994/2016
DEEPAK KHOSLA ..... Petitioner versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Petitioner in person with Ms. Himani Kaushik,
Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Ashish Dutta, APP for the State
Mr. Maninder Singh with Mr. Anand M. Mishra, Advocates for respondent Nos.2 to 5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL) Crl.M.A.32362/2019/2019 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.M.C. 2994/2016 & Crl.M.A.32361/2019 (for urgent disposal of the petition)
-
Petitioner impugns order dated 23.07.2016 in CC No.64/3 number) and 511998/16 (new number) titled Deepak Khosla Vikram Bakshi & Ors.
CRL.M.C.2994/2016 Page 1
-
By the impugned order the complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed on two counts, firstly on the ground that no document produced on record to show that he was one of the shareholders of the subject Company and thus entitled to maintain a complaint under Section 621 of the Companies Act, 1956 and the second ground given by the Trial Court for dismissing the complaint was that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 340 (2) Cr.P.C. before the High Court alleging commission of act of perjury by the respondent. Trial Court was of the view that since the High Court had directed preliminary inquiry to be conducted by the Registrar (Vigilance) the High Court and to submit a report thereon with regard to allegations made by the petitioner and the matter is sub judice before the High Court, no direction could be issued by that Court on the same issues.
-
The petitioner, who appears in Court in person, submits there were two similar complaints pending before the Trial Court, which were disposed of on the same day by identical orders, except that in the other complaint there was no findings returned by the Trial Court that petitioner had failed to produce any document to show he was a shareholder and thus entitled to maintain an application under Section 621 of the Companies Act, 1956.
-
He submits that there was enough material placed before Trial Court in the other petition to show that he has the locus standi to
CRL.M.C.2994/2016 Page 2
maintain the complaint under Section 621 of the Companies Act 1956.
-
It is pointed out by the petitioner that the proceedings perjury, which were initially...
To continue reading
Request your trial