Criminal proceedings from a commercial transaction may continue where the complaint discloses prima facie offences and disputed facts require trial.

Criminal proceedings arising from a commercial or contractual transaction are not liable to be quashed under inherent powers where the complaint and charge sheet disclose a prima facie cognizable offence. Allegations of execution of sale documents without consent and alteration or fabrication of records were treated as specific acts of participation, while disputes over the asset transfer agreement, extension of the long stop date, shareholder consent, and the petitioners' actual role were held to be matters for trial. As the police had investigated and filed the charge sheet on witness statements, the HC held that quashing was unwarranted because the case was neither frivolous nor devoid of criminal ingredients, and the prosecution was allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction on the ground that the dispute arose out of a company transaction and the petitioners claimed to be only employees of the purchaser.

Analysis: The allegations disclosed specific acts of participation in the impugned transaction, including alleged execution of sale documents without consent and alleged alteration or fabrication of documents. The existence of contractual or corporate disputes did not, by itself, exclude criminality where the complaint and charge sheet disclosed ingredients of cognizable offences. At the stage of Section 482 jurisdiction, disputed questions such as compliance with the asset transfer agreement, extension of the long stop date, consent of shareholders, and the petitioners' actual role were treated as matters for trial, not for summary evaluation. The Court also noted that the police had investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet after recording witness statements, and that quashing is warranted only where no offence is disclosed or the case is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive.

Conclusion: The petitioners failed to make out a case for quashing, and the criminal proceedings were held to be liable to continue.

Final Conclusion: The inherent jurisdiction was not exercised, and the criminal case was permitted to proceed to trial.

Ratio Decidendi: A criminal proceeding arising from a commercial or contractual transaction is not liable to be quashed under inherent powers if the complaint and investigation disclose a prima facie criminal offence and the defence raises disputed factual issues fit for trial.

---