https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168089 For quashing at the threshold, an FIR must disclose a prima facie criminal offence on its face. On the allegations, goods covered by hypothecation under a floating charge remained in the company's possession and ownership, so disposal of those goods did not amount to criminal breach of trust; the related allegations of cheating, forgery and conspiracy were not established on the materials then available. The Court also treated the dispute as substantially civil, noting prior civil proceedings, compromise of the bank claims, and a long lapse of time with an incomplete investigation. In those special facts, continuation of criminal investigation was considered inexpedient and the quashing of the FIRs was left undisturbed. en-us Tue, 09 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Jan 2015 17:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168089 For quashing at the threshold, an FIR must disclose a prima facie criminal offence on its face. On the allegations, goods covered by hypothecation under a floating charge remained in the company's possession and ownership, so disposal of those goods did not amount to criminal breach of trust; the related allegations of cheating, forgery and conspiracy were not established on the materials then available. The Court also treated the dispute as substantially civil, noting prior civil proceedings, compromise of the bank claims, and a long lapse of time with an incomplete investigation. In those special facts, continuation of criminal investigation was considered inexpedient and the quashing of the FIRs was left undisturbed. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 09 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168089