Unauthorised Use of Company Car by a Former Director Justified Process u/s 452 of Companies Act, Discharge Plea Dismissed | HC

Case Details: Meeta Bansal v. State of West Bengal - [2025] 173 taxmann.com 463 (HC-Calcutta)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.
• Y.J. Dastoor, Ld. Sr. Adv. for the Petitioner.
• Ayan Bhattacharya, Somopriyo Chowdhury, Ms Nairanjana Ghosh & Anurag Modi, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, Petitioner and S were husband and wife. Both were the directors of the company. The petitioner was no more director of the company. The company filed a complaint against the petitioner under section 452 of the Companies Act, 2013.

The petitioner filed an application praying for discharge from the impugned proceedings. However, the Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected it on the ground that if any officer or employee of a company, having validly obtained possession of a company’s property, wrongfully retains it, as appeared to be the case in the instant proceeding, it would constitute an offence contemplated in Section 452 of the Act.

The petitioner then filed an instant Criminal Revisional application to quash the proceedings. It was noted that the car, which the company purchased, was in the petitioner’s custody. She was using it exclusively for her personal use. Further, since the petitioner was no more director of the company, she could not withhold the same without the permission of the Company.

High Court Held

The High Court held that it was incumbent upon the Trial Court to decide whether the petitioner wrongfully withheld the articles of the Company or not after a full-fledged trial. Accordingly, a process was issued against the petitioner after the Court had taken cognisance of the matter. After being satisfied prima facie, it seemed correct, legal, and justified and required no interference.

Thus, the lower court rejected the petition for discharge, finding no error or perversity and finding it well within its jurisdiction. Therefore, the petitioner’s prayer for discharge from the case was devoid of merit.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083
• State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 [Para 15]
• Naresh Kumar & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka & Anr. 2024 INSC 196
• Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirac Angre JT 1988 (1) S.C. 279
• Jitha Sanjay and Others v. State of Kerala 2024/KER/42293 [para 18]; distinguished.
• Aniruddha Khanwalkar v. Sharmila Das 6 2024 INSC 342 [Para 19]
• Hooghly Mills Company Limited v. State of West Bengal (2020) 18 SCC 568 [ Para 21]; followed.

List of Cases Referred to

• Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083 (para 1)
• State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others (1) SCC 335 (para 1)
• Naresh Kumar & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka & Anr 2024 INSC 196 (para 1)
• Aniruddha Khanwalkar v. Sharmila Das & Others 2024 INSC 342 (para 4)
• Dilbag Rai v. State of Haryana and Others (2019) 16 SCC 736 (para 4)
• Alka Bapu Gund v. Prakash Kanhaiyalal Kankaria (2017) 11 SCC 108 (para 4)
• Hooghly Mills Company Limited v. State of West Bengal and Another (2020) 18 SCC 568 (para 4).