Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:69708 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3277 of 2025 Applicant :- Shri Fateh Singh And Another Opposite Party :- Union Of India And Another Counsel for Applicant :- A.Z.Khan,Mohammad Asif Counsel for Opposite Party :- Alok Ranjan Mishra,G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Mohammad Asif, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Alok Ranjan Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. This application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred for setting aside the impugned summoning order dated 11.06.2024 passed against the applicants and quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Criminal Complaint Case No. 20344 of 2023 u/s 454 (8) (i) & (ii) and read with Section 12 of Companies Act 2013, Police Station- Sikandra District- Agra (Registrar Of Companies U.P Kanpur Vs Swastha Jeevan India Nidhi Limited and others), pending Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicants and others with relation to the commission of the offences under Sections 454 (8)(i) & (ii) read with Section 12 of the Company Act, 2013 on 08.06.2023 pursuant whereto learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the matter and summoned the applicant on 11.06.2022. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are nowhere concerned with the Company namely, Swastha Jeevan India Nidhi Limited as he seeks to argue from memorandum of article of association of the year 2015 that the Directors are Pooja Mishra, Amit Mishra, Ashok Kumar Mishra and while inviting attention towards page 106 of the paper book, it is sought to be submitted that even the Gram Panchayat Hasela, Agra has given a certificate that the applicants are labourers. He further submits that even otherwise Form No. ADT-1 under Section 139 of the Companies Act itself shows that applicants are not the Directors. He, thus, submits that the summoning order has been passed in a routine manner without due application of mind and is liable to be set aside. 4. Sri Mishra who appears for the opposite parties has produced before this Court the instructions/para-wise comments, according to which, he submits that as per form No DIR-12, the applicant no. 1 happens to be the Director of the said company with effect from 03.12.2018 followed by applicant no. 2 as Additional Director on 07.06.2019. He further submits that prima facie materials are available which does not in any manner whatsoever suggest or show that offences are not made against the applicant, he further submits that summoning order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. 5. Having heard the submissions so made across the bar, the Court at this stage is occasioned with a challenge being raised to a summoning order. The Form DIR-12 which has been placed before this Court shows that the applicant no. 1 was appointed as a Director on 03.12.2018 and applicant no. 2 as Additional Director on 07.06.2009. As regards the submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are labourers, the same cannot be gone into at this stage in the present proceedings as it is for the applicants to appear and contest the proceedings while showing his identity and also innocence in this regard. 6. Accordingly, no case for interference is made, the application stands disposed of. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submits that liberty be accorded to the applicants to apply for bail. 8. Learned AGA has no objection to the same. 9. In the opinion of the Court, once a bail application is preferred then the same shall be considered with most expeditions strictly as per the law of the land without any delay. 10. Instructions/para-wise comments filed today is taken on record and marked as Appendix 'A'. Order Date :- 1.5.2025 Rajesh Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad