https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=225136 Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is exercised sparingly and only where the allegations, even if accepted, do not disclose an offence. The Court held that quashing was unwarranted because the certified prospectus obtained from the stock exchange showed the petitioners as directors and signatories, so the plea that the Magistrate had been misled was not accepted. It also noted that criminal liability for misstatements in a prospectus under Section 63 of the Companies Act attaches to persons who authorised the issue, distinct from civil liability under Section 62. On the material available, the cognizance order could not be faulted and the quashing challenge failed. en-us Fri, 15 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Apr 2013 11:56:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=225136 Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is exercised sparingly and only where the allegations, even if accepted, do not disclose an offence. The Court held that quashing was unwarranted because the certified prospectus obtained from the stock exchange showed the petitioners as directors and signatories, so the plea that the Magistrate had been misled was not accepted. It also noted that criminal liability for misstatements in a prospectus under Section 63 of the Companies Act attaches to persons who authorised the issue, distinct from civil liability under Section 62. On the material available, the cognizance order could not be faulted and the quashing challenge failed. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 15 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=225136