https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308662 Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 was treated as a special bar on cognizance of fraud-related offences unless a complaint is made by the statutorily authorised authorities after inquiry, inspection, investigation, or SFIO action has yielded a finding of fraud; a private complaint resting only on inference was therefore unsustainable for Sections 447 and 448. On the forgery allegations, the Court applied Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code and found that general assertions of manipulation of forms and board resolutions did not show how a false document was made, altered, or executed within the statutory definition; accordingly, the connected charge under Section 463 also failed. The prosecution was quashed as an abuse of process. en-us Wed, 12 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Jul 2023 08:01:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308662 Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 was treated as a special bar on cognizance of fraud-related offences unless a complaint is made by the statutorily authorised authorities after inquiry, inspection, investigation, or SFIO action has yielded a finding of fraud; a private complaint resting only on inference was therefore unsustainable for Sections 447 and 448. On the forgery allegations, the Court applied Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code and found that general assertions of manipulation of forms and board resolutions did not show how a false document was made, altered, or executed within the statutory definition; accordingly, the connected charge under Section 463 also failed. The prosecution was quashed as an abuse of process. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 12 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308662