Jurisdiction over Delhi FIR and Section 446 company law protection do not bar criminal prosecution for cheating and forgery.

A petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking quashing of an FIR registered in Delhi was held not maintainable because the FIR was registered in Delhi, the alleged transactions and document execution occurred there, and cognizance had already been taken by the competent Magistrate in Delhi. The court also stated that Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, which centralises suits and other proceedings connected with winding up, does not extend to criminal prosecutions. Criminal proceedings for allegations such as cheating and forgery are therefore not barred by the company court's jurisdiction under that provision and may continue before the competent criminal court.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a petition filed before the High Court could seek quashing of an FIR registered at Delhi; and (ii) whether the expression "other legal proceedings" in Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 includes criminal proceedings.

Issue (i): whether a petition filed before the High Court could seek quashing of an FIR registered at Delhi.

Analysis: Jurisdiction was found to lie with the Delhi court because the FIR was registered there, the alleged credit facilities were obtained and the relevant documents were executed there, and cognizance had already been taken by the competent Magistrate at Delhi. The petitioners had not shown a basis to invoke the High Court's jurisdiction for quashing the Delhi FIR merely because winding up proceedings had earlier been taken up elsewhere.

Conclusion: The petition to quash the Delhi FIR before this High Court was not maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether the expression "other legal proceedings" in Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 includes criminal proceedings.

Analysis: Section 446 is intended to protect the company's assets and centralise disputes connected with winding up, but it does not bar prosecution for criminal acts against directors or officers. The expression "suit or other legal proceedings" was held not to extend to criminal proceedings, and the company court's jurisdiction under Section 446 was therefore inapplicable to the criminal case arising from allegations of cheating and forgery.

Conclusion: Criminal proceedings are not included within the expression "other legal proceedings" in Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed on jurisdiction and on merits of the statutory objection, and the criminal proceedings were left to continue before the competent Delhi court.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 does not cover criminal prosecutions, and a company court cannot assume jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings pending before a court having territorial jurisdiction over the offence.

---