Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

I. BECAUSE the uncontroverted allegations made in the RC and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence against thePetitioner. J. BECAUSE continuance of trial qua the Petitioner would cause irreparable loss to the Petitioner. It is submitted that the Petitioner, at present, is Director and Key Managerial Person of SEBI CAT-II AIF and as per Rule 3(b)(ii) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Intermediaries)(Third Amendment) Regulations, 2021, any person, who has been chargesheeted by any Court would not be considered as fit person and shall be the subject to disqualification within six months of such impediment. K. BECAUSE trial in the said case would turn to be a punishment for the Petitioner, as with disqualification as mentioned above, the Petitioner will not be allowed to continue working as Director and Key Managerial Person in the said company, thereby leading a catastrophic situation for the Petitioner.

11. It is submitted that the allegations made in the impugned chargesheet, even when considered to be uncontroverted and taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the evidence collected in support of the allegations made in the impugned chargesheet do not disclose the commission of any offence against the petitioner and the mere fact that the petitioner was the Director of the said companies cannot fasten criminal liability upon him unless his specific role in the commission of any offence is proved on the basis of any material evidence.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

34. Therefore, it is clear that the question of exercise of the Court‟s inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash criminal proceedings would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, and there can be no one-size-fits-all approach that the Court can adopt while deciding the same. However, while deciding this question, it should be kept into keen consideration that the Court does not need to determine the genuineness of the allegations and the evidence placed before it. The Court‟s exercise is merely limited to a determination as to whether the uncontroverted allegations when taken at their face value, disclose the commission of the offence in question by the accused.