Calcutta HC turns down plea by India Infoline Ltd to quash proceedings

Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has turned down a plea by financial services company India Infoline Ltd (IIL) to quash proceedings under Sections 163(4)/196(3)/301(5)/372A (6) of the Companies Act and Sections 467/120B of the Indian Penal Code pending against it in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purba Midnapore.

The trial court is hearing the matter on the basis of a complaint by one Arunava Patra.

On March 9, 2012, Patra purchased two debentures of India Infoline Finance Ltd (IIFL), a subsidiary of IIL. He was subsequently paid interest for the two debentures.

On October 3, 2012, Patra lodged a complaint alleging that IIFL and IIL entered into a criminal conspiracy and manipulated the records of IIFL to deny him his rights. This was done to deny any pecuniary benefit due to him from the profits of the company, it was alleged in the complaint by Patra.

Counsel for IIL submitted before the high court that it is a holding company of IIFL but has no role to play regarding the debentures of its subsidiary. They also challenged the jurisdiction of the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purba Midnapore, to hear such a matter.

Lawyers appearing for Patra contended this and pointed out that it was IIL that had interacted with their client on behalf of IIFL and had also shared documents. As IIL has its office within the jurisdiction of the trial court, the court can hear the matter, it was further submitted.

After going through the submissions by both sides, Justice Rai Chattopadhyay directed: “It is found that there is no ground in this case for which this Court’s power under Section 482 of the CrPC, to prevent any abuse of the process of Court or otherwise to secure the end of justice, should be exercised. Instead, the prima facie material found in the complaint dated 03.10.2012, lodged by the opposite party/complainant prompts this Court to dismiss the present case and direct the trial court to commence the proceedings in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. Hence, this revision is dismissed.”