https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456904 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be used to quash a charge-sheet at the threshold where the allegations disclose offences requiring trial and no clear ground for interference is shown. In this Bombay HC matter, the petition challenged criminal proceedings based on FIRs alleging cheating, forgery and related offences arising from alleged cornering of IPO shares meant for retail investors. On the facts placed before it, the Court found no basis to accept the claim that there was no complicity at that stage and declined to interfere with the criminal process. The writ petition was dismissed, and the prosecution was left to proceed in accordance with law. en-us Tue, 27 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Aug 2024 20:33:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456904 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be used to quash a charge-sheet at the threshold where the allegations disclose offences requiring trial and no clear ground for interference is shown. In this Bombay HC matter, the petition challenged criminal proceedings based on FIRs alleging cheating, forgery and related offences arising from alleged cornering of IPO shares meant for retail investors. On the facts placed before it, the Court found no basis to accept the claim that there was no complicity at that stage and declined to interfere with the criminal process. The writ petition was dismissed, and the prosecution was left to proceed in accordance with law. Case-Laws SEBI Tue, 27 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456904