https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295449 A pre-cognizance order directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC was treated as premature for challenge under Article 227 or Section 482, because it did not itself cause irreparable prejudice and the Magistrate could examine the matter after the police report. The complaint also contained only general allegations against the company and its directors; criminal liability of corporate officers cannot be inferred from designation alone unless the statute creates vicarious liability or the complaint pleads specific personal in the offence. The refusal to quash the investigation was upheld. en-us Fri, 09 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Jun 2021 08:23:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295449 A pre-cognizance order directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC was treated as premature for challenge under Article 227 or Section 482, because it did not itself cause irreparable prejudice and the Magistrate could examine the matter after the police report. The complaint also contained only general allegations against the company and its directors; criminal liability of corporate officers cannot be inferred from designation alone unless the statute creates vicarious liability or the complaint pleads specific personal in the offence. The refusal to quash the investigation was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 09 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295449