9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (11) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nujam, J. The petitioner herein filed a complaint under section 629 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, before the lower court on August 25, 1969, against the respondent herein. The said complaint was taken on file by the lower court and an order dated October 20, 1969, was passed. That order consists of two portions. In the earlier portion of the order, it has given certain reasons as to what a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dure Code, that it is for the police to register a case and investigate and take such further action in the matter, and that the court cannot proceed any further in the matter at that stage. It is this order which is being challenged in this revision. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the view taken by the court below is erroneous, as it has felt that there is no necessity for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vestigated by the police after registering a case will be clearly erroneous. An offence under section 629 of the Indian Companies Act is a non-cognizable offence as per section 624 of the Indian Companies Act, and a non-cognizable offence cannot be a matter for investigation by the police under section 156(3), Criminal Procedure Code. The lower court, of course, invokes section 155(2), Criminal Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aint under section 156(3), Criminal Procedure Code, is treated as one passed under section 155(2), Criminal Procedure Code, the lower court should have called for a report from the police as to what the result of the investigation was and passed final orders on the complaint filed before it. After seeing that the court has not passed any final orders on the complaint, the petitioner moved the cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
