https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94640 HC, exercising revisional jurisdiction under s. 482 CrPC, quashed criminal proceedings initiated against A1 and others for alleged violation of s. 148(6) of the Companies Act, 2013, based on a complaint under s. 148(8). HC found that the Board had approved the cost audit report on 30.06.2016, the Cost Auditor had signed the report and annexures on the same date at Kolkata, and Form CRA-4 was filed on 27.07.2016, well within the prescribed 30-day period. The alleged delay arose only from a clerical error in typing the date in Form CRA-4. HC also held the complaint, lodged after about three years, to be barred by limitation under s. 468 CrPC. en-us Mon, 01 Dec 2025 08:50:08 +0530 Mon, 01 Dec 2025 08:50:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94640 HC, exercising revisional jurisdiction under s. 482 CrPC, quashed criminal proceedings initiated against A1 and others for alleged violation of s. 148(6) of the Companies Act, 2013, based on a complaint under s. 148(8). HC found that the Board had approved the cost audit report on 30.06.2016, the Cost Auditor had signed the report and annexures on the same date at Kolkata, and Form CRA-4 was filed on 27.07.2016, well within the prescribed 30-day period. The alleged delay arose only from a clerical error in typing the date in Form CRA-4. HC also held the complaint, lodged after about three years, to be barred by limitation under s. 468 CrPC. Highlights Companies Law Mon, 01 Dec 2025 08:50:08 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94640