https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788626 A complaint by a Deputy Registrar under Section 439(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 was treated as maintainable because the term "Registrar" was read to include a Deputy Registrar. Limitation did not bar the prosecution, as the alleged defaults fell outside the Section 468 CrPC threshold. However, the complaint lacked specific averments that the auditor knowingly made a false statement or intentionally omitted a material fact under Section 448, and the allegations were general and unsupported by particulars. On that basis, the proceedings against the auditor were found unsustainable and liable to be quashed for abuse of process. en-us Mon, 23 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Mar 2026 09:05:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788626 A complaint by a Deputy Registrar under Section 439(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 was treated as maintainable because the term "Registrar" was read to include a Deputy Registrar. Limitation did not bar the prosecution, as the alleged defaults fell outside the Section 468 CrPC threshold. However, the complaint lacked specific averments that the auditor knowingly made a false statement or intentionally omitted a material fact under Section 448, and the allegations were general and unsupported by particulars. On that basis, the proceedings against the auditor were found unsustainable and liable to be quashed for abuse of process. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 23 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788626