1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL  NO. 1087 of 2003

SUCCY BOBBY VARGHESE & ANR. ..... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR    .... RESPONDENT

WITH  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1086 OF 2003

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1163 OF 2003

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1088 OF 2003

AND

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1164 OF 2003

O R D E R

1. We  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

parties.

2. Although special leave had been granted way back  

in  2003,  subsequent  to  the  grant  of  leave  certain  

developments have taken place which require that the  

matter  should  be  reconsidered  by  the  High  Court.  

Pursuant  to  the  orders  of  the  High  Court  made  in  

Criminal Complaint No. 5 of 2003 in C.P  No. 18 of 1999  

a  Special  Officer  had  been  appointed  to  suggest

2

measures and ways for the revival of the Company and to  

ensure that the dues of the Company were duly settled.  

This report dated 23rd December, 2009 is on file.  It  

has come on page 71 of the additional documents filed  

by the appellants that the creditors/claimants seeking  

payment  from  the  appellant-Company  have  been  

substantially settled though some disputes still remain  

for which some amounts have been kept aside.  In para  

11 of the Report afore-referred, the Special Officer  

has suggested as under:

“Regarding misfeasance applications,  

criminal  complaints  and  debts  claims  

pending  before  this  Hon'ble  Court.   As  

mentioned in para 210 to 220 (page No. 95  

to 99) of report No. 7, the decision of the  

Committee  be  approved,  misfeasance  

application  may  be  dismissed,  criminal  

complaints  pending  before  this  Hon'ble  

Court  may  be  closed  as  settled  while  

criminal cases pending against the former  

Directors before the lower court (which is  

mentioned at para 221 and 222 page No. 99  

and 100 of report No. 7) may be quashed by  

the Hon'ble High Court invoking in powers  

under 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, in  

the  interest  of  promoting  the  ends  of  

justice,  preventing  the  abuse  of  process  

and  facilitating  the  revival  of  the  

company.”

3. In the light of the aforesaid suggestions and

3

keeping in view of the above facts, it is appropriate  

that the matter should be remitted to the High Court  

for  reconsideration  as  the  matter  for  revival  of  

company   is  pending  before  the  High  Court.   We,  

accordingly, quash the orders of both the Company Judge  

dated  26th November,  2002  and  that  of  the  Division  

Bench dated 23rd May, 2003 and remit the case to the  

High Court for decision afresh and to make an order in  

the backdrop of the report of the Special Officer.   

4. The  appeals  are  accordingly  disposed  of.

5. In  the  light  of  the  above  order,  all  other  

pending applications are disposed of.

......................J  [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

......................J  [J.M. PANCHAL]

  NEW DELHI     APRIL 20, 2010.