TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court quashes cognizance order in forgery case, no prima facie evidence found</h1> <h3>ASHOK CHATURVEDI & ORS. Versus. SHITUL H CHANCHANI & ANR.</h3> The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the cognizance order against the appellants and two unrepresented company officers. The Court found no ... - Issues Involved: Allegations of offences u/s 406, 420, 468, and 120-B IPC, quashing of cognizance order u/s 482 CrPC, determination of prima facie case, abuse of court process, involvement of company officials in share transfer.Judgment Summary:The appellants were accused in a complaint petition alleging offences u/s 406, 420, 468, and 120-B IPC related to share transfer by a public limited company. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and issued process against the accused. The appellants moved the High Court to quash the cognizance, arguing no offence was made out against them. The High Court, finding a prima facie case due to alleged forged signatures, refused to quash the cognizance under Section 482 CrPC.The appellants contended that being company officials, no specific allegations were made against them, and the dispute was civil in nature as evidenced by a claim filed before the Consumer Forum. The High Court's decision not to quash cognizance was challenged. The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the dispute was purely civil based on the Consumer Forum claim.The Court analyzed the complaint, statements, and evidence, concluding that the offences u/s 406, 420, 467, 468, and 120-B IPC were not established against the appellants. The complaint lacked substance beyond vague allegations of forged signatures, with no evidence linking the appellants to the alleged forgery. Thus, the Magistrate's cognizance order and the High Court's decision were quashed under Section 482 CrPC.While only 7 of the 9 accused officials filed the special leave petition, the Court found no offence established against any company officers, including the two who did not file the petition. Consequently, the criminal proceedings against all accused officials were quashed.In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the cognizance order against the appellants and the two unrepresented company officers, finding no prima facie case for the alleged offences based on the evidence presented.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
