Forged corporate filings and prima facie evidence can defeat quashing under inherent criminal jurisdiction

Provisions on oppression and mismanagement under the Companies Act, 2013 were treated as inapplicable to allegations that directors were inducted through a forged Form No. 32, because the complaint concerned forged corporate filings rather than the statutory remedy for oppression. The Court also applied the settled principle that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC must be used sparingly and not to test evidence at the threshold where the charge sheet and supporting material disclose a prima facie offence. On that basis, the request to quash the criminal proceedings was declined and the prosecution was allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the provisions relating to oppression and mismanagement under the Companies Act, 2013 applied to the alleged acts of induction of directors by a forged Form No. 32; (ii) Whether the charge sheet disclosed a prima facie case so as to refuse quashing of the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether the provisions relating to oppression and mismanagement under the Companies Act, 2013 applied to the alleged acts of induction of directors by a forged Form No. 32.

Analysis: The alleged incident was stated to have occurred on 31-10-2012, prior to the 2013 amendment. The provisions relied upon by the petitioners were confined to oppression and mismanagement and were not attracted to allegations concerning appointment of persons as directors by filing a forged document. The statutory remedy under those provisions therefore had no prima facie application to the allegations in the complaint.

Conclusion: The contention based on Sections 241 to 246 of the Companies Act, 2013 was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the charge sheet disclosed a prima facie case so as to refuse quashing of the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The record showed collection of material from the Registrar of Companies, including the Form No. 32 and the e-mail attributed to the third petitioner, which indicated action on instructions of the first petitioner. The settled rule governing inherent jurisdiction is that it must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases, and the Court should not evaluate the reliability of evidence at the threshold when the charge sheet discloses prima facie offences. The materials collected by the investigating agency were sufficient to let the prosecution proceed to trial.

Conclusion: The request to quash the charge sheet was declined because a prima facie case was made out.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings were permitted to continue, and the challenge to the criminal case failed at the threshold.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should not be used to stifle a legitimate prosecution where the charge sheet and supporting material disclose a prima facie offence, and provisions meant for oppression and mismanagement cannot be invoked to defeat allegations of forged corporate filings.

---