https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266441 A petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking quashing of an FIR registered in Delhi was held not maintainable because the FIR was registered in Delhi, the alleged transactions and document execution occurred there, and cognizance had already been taken by the competent Magistrate in Delhi. The court also stated that Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, which centralises suits and other proceedings connected with winding up, does not extend to criminal prosecutions. Criminal proceedings for allegations such as cheating and forgery are therefore not barred by the company court's jurisdiction under that provision and may continue before the competent criminal court. en-us Fri, 24 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Oct 2015 07:50:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266441 A petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking quashing of an FIR registered in Delhi was held not maintainable because the FIR was registered in Delhi, the alleged transactions and document execution occurred there, and cognizance had already been taken by the competent Magistrate in Delhi. The court also stated that Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, which centralises suits and other proceedings connected with winding up, does not extend to criminal prosecutions. Criminal proceedings for allegations such as cheating and forgery are therefore not barred by the company court's jurisdiction under that provision and may continue before the competent criminal court. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 24 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266441