SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

DELHI HIGH COURT
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
Manjit Jaju – Appellant
Versus
Registrar of Compaines, N.C.T. of Delhi and Haryana – Respondent


JUDGMENT

1. By the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C the petitioner has sought quashing of criminal complaint no.451 of 2002 and the proceedings emanating therefrom filed by Registrar of Companies against the petitioner for offences under Sections 63 and 628 of Companies Act, 1956 on the ground that the complaint was barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C.

2. It is submitted that the period of limitation prescribed for filing such complaint was three years from the date of alleged misstatement or false statement in the prospectus and the present complaint was filed after about 7 years. The prospectus was issued by the petitioner on 17th July, 1996 and the complaint was filed on 7th May, 2002.

3. A perusal of Section 468 Cr.P.C would show that the period of limitation for taking cognizance of offence where the punishment prescribed under law for offence was a term of one year imprisonment but not exceeding three years imprisonment, was three years. The starting point of limitation as prescribed under 468 Cr.P.C is either the date of commission of offence or the date of knowledge of commission of offence which ever was later.

4. The plea taken by the petitio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top