TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a writ of prohibition could be issued to restrain the police from continuing the investigation into alleged cognizable offences, and whether sections 630, 234 and 242 of the Companies Act, 1956 barred such investigation.
Analysis: The complaint related to offences punishable under sections 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which are cognizable offences. Under sections 154, 156(1) and 157(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the police had jurisdiction, and indeed a statutory duty, to investigate such offences on information received, even if the complaint was imperfect or irregular. Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 provided only a summary remedy in favour of the company and did not create a bar against police investigation or prosecution for cognizable offences under the Indian Penal Code. Section 242(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 was merely enabling and did not divest police jurisdiction. Any alleged irregularity in the Registrar's complaint did not affect the police power to investigate.
Conclusion: The police had jurisdiction to continue the investigation, and no writ of prohibition could issue.
Final Conclusion: The petition failed because no statutory prohibition against the investigation was established, and the challenge to the police's authority was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: A writ of prohibition will not lie where the investigating police officer has jurisdiction under the Criminal Procedure Code to investigate cognizable offences, and provisions in the Companies Act that confer a summary civil or penal remedy do not, by themselves, bar such investigation.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
