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>HC rejects bail for fraudulent property transactions, upholds jurisdiction and criminal proceedings under Companies Act Section 430</h1> <h3>Manoj Shrivastava Versus State of M.P. and Ors.</h3> Manoj Shrivastava Versus State of M.P. and Ors. - TMI Issues: Jurisdiction of Police Station, Applicability of Companies Act, Jurisdiction of Civil CourtJurisdiction of Police Station:The judgment addresses the issue of territorial jurisdiction concerning the investigation of a case involving offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Companies Act. The applicant argued that since the decisions were made in Noida, the Noida police should handle the case, not the Police Station in Gwalior. However, the Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the alleged fraudulent activities, including sham sale deeds and misappropriation of funds, occurred in Gwalior. Citing legal provisions, the Court highlighted that when offences take place in multiple areas, each area's police station has jurisdiction to investigate. The judgment referred to a Supreme Court case to support this stance.Applicability of Companies Act:The judgment delves into whether the applicant could be prosecuted under the Indian Penal Code for offences also covered by the Companies Act. The applicant contended that specific provisions of the Companies Act precluded prosecution under the Penal Code. However, the Court dismissed this argument, stating that there was no provision in the Companies Act excluding the Penal Code's applicability. Legal precedents were cited to support the rejection of the applicant's argument, emphasizing that prosecution under different statutes for the same offence is permissible.Jurisdiction of Civil Court:Lastly, the judgment addressed the argument that since Section 430 of the Companies Act bars the jurisdiction of civil courts, criminal court jurisdiction should also be barred. The Court rejected this contention, stating that the exclusion of civil court jurisdiction does not automatically extend to criminal court jurisdiction. It highlighted the need for specific legislative provisions to exclude criminal court jurisdiction and emphasized that such exclusions must be strictly construed. The judgment concluded that the FIR and criminal proceedings could not be quashed, ultimately dismissing the application.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the Court's reasoning on each issue, citing legal provisions and precedents to support its conclusions.
TaxTMI 