Back
J. K. MAHESHWARI, K. VINOD CHANDRAN
Yerram Vijay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
आप इस कानूनी दस्तावेज़ को हिंदी में डाउनलोड करने के लिए, कृपया उस वेबसाइट या प्लेटफ़ॉर्म का उपयोग करें जहां यह दस्तावेज़ उपलब्ध है। यदि आप इसे सीधे अपने कंप्यूटर या मोबाइल डिवाइस पर सेव करना चाहते हैं, तो आप निम्नलिखित चरणों का पालन कर सकते हैं:
यदि यह दस्तावेज़ किसी विशेष वेबसाइट पर उपलब्ध है और आप वहां से डाउनलोड करना चाहते हैं, तो उस वेबसाइट के डाउनलोड बटन या लिंक का उपयोग करें। यदि आप अधिक सहायता चाहते हैं, तो कृपया उस वेबसाइट का नाम या लिंक प्रदान करें।
JUDGMENT :
J.K. Maheshwari, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment dated 20.06.2024 passed by the Single Bench of High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “High Court”) whereby the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”) of the Appellants – accused was dismissed. The prayer in the said petition was to quash the criminal proceedings in complaint case bearing C.C. No. 58 of 2022 filed by Respondent No. 2 – Complainant against the Appellants where the Special Court for Economic Offences at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “Special Court”) has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 448 & 451 of the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Companies Act”) and Sections 420, 406, 426, 468, 470, 471 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”).
FACTS
3. The genesis of the dispute lies in the affairs of a private limited company, namely M/s Shreemukh Namitha Homes Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Company”), which was incorporated on 19.08.2015 under the provisions of the Companies Act by
(1) Right recourse for a person, who makes allegation of fraud in affairs of a company is to file application under Section 213 of Companies Act before NCLT upon satisfying eligibility under Section ....
The court emphasized the importance of procedural compliance and the distinction between civil and criminal liability in cases involving business disputes and misuse of information.
Point of Law : No proceedings could have been initiated by a Shareholder by himself under Section 447 of the Act and that the requirement under Sub-Section (6) of Section 212 of the Act was required ....
The Special Court retains jurisdiction to try offences under Section 452 of the Companies Act, 2013 for actions occurring before the 2020 amendment, which excluded such offences from its jurisdiction....
Quash of criminal proceedings– Directors of company - admittedly proceeding initiated by Official Liquidator since not being one under Section 446, respondent / Official Liquidator ought to have obta....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
