TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the criminal proceedings could be quashed on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction and limitation. (ii) Whether the complaint disclosed a prima facie offence under section 220(3) of the Companies Act so as to warrant interference under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Issue (i): Whether the criminal proceedings could be quashed on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction and limitation.
Analysis: The question where the company had its registered office involved a disputed factual issue that had to be decided by the trial court on the basis of evidence. The plea of limitation also depended on whether the alleged default constituted a continuous offence, which likewise required determination during trial and could not be conclusively resolved at the stage of quashing.
Conclusion: The plea for quashing on the grounds of jurisdiction and limitation was rejected.
Issue (ii): Whether the complaint disclosed a prima facie offence under section 220(3) of the Companies Act so as to warrant interference under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: The complaint alleged failure to submit annual returns as required by section 220(3) of the Companies Act, which disclosed a prima facie case of an offence punishable under section 220 of the Companies Act. Inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to be exercised only to secure justice or prevent miscarriage of justice, and no such ground was made out on the facts pleaded.
Conclusion: The complaint disclosed a prima facie offence and no ground for interference under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was made out.
Final Conclusion: The prosecution was allowed to proceed and the request to quash the criminal proceedings failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Inherent criminal jurisdiction will not be exercised to quash proceedings where the complaint discloses a prima facie offence and the objections raised depend on disputed facts or matters to be decided at trial.
TaxTMI 
