Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a complaint under section 629 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, relating to a non-cognizable offence could be forwarded to the police under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and whether the Magistrate could decline to pass a final order on the complaint by leaving the matter entirely to police investigation.
Analysis: Section 629 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 was treated as an offence that is non-cognizable by reason of section 624 of that Act. A non-cognizable offence is not fit for investigation in the manner contemplated by section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Even if the earlier direction were to be viewed as one under section 155(2) of the Code, the Magistrate was still required to call for a report and thereafter pass final orders on the complaint. The Magistrate could not simply direct the police to register a case and investigate while withholding disposal of the statutory complaint.
Conclusion: The forwarding of the complaint under section 156(3) was illegal, and the petitioner succeeded on the validity of the impugned order.
Final Conclusion: The order of the court below was set aside and the complaint was directed to be taken back and disposed of in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory complaint alleging a non-cognizable offence cannot be left for police investigation under section 156(3), and the Magistrate must itself proceed to dispose of the complaint under the proper procedure prescribed by law.