Companies and Insolvency · F2J-C-2988

Yerram Vijay Kumar v. State of Telangana & Anr. (with connected appeal)

By CA Nikhil Gupta · Reviewed against the retained judgment 2026-09-26

Finin2min two-minute summary

An offence which makes a person liable under section 447 attracts the second proviso to section 212(6). Cognizance requires a complaint from the SFIO Director or an authorised Central Government officer. The statutory gate does not automatically extinguish independently pleaded IPC offences. Appeals partly allowed. Companies Act proceedings under sections 448 and 451 and their consequential orders were quashed; the remaining IPC complaint was transferred to the competent territorial court within four weeks for decision on its own merits. No costs.

Court: Supreme Court of India
Case: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 11530 of 2024 with connected appeal
Date: 2026-01-09
Bench: J.K. Maheshwari, K. Vinod Chandran
Result: Appeals partly allowed. Companies Act proceedings under sections 448 and 451 and their consequential orders were quashed; the remaining IPC complaint was transferred to the competent territorial court within four weeks for decision on its own merits. No costs.
Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 42
CNR: Not stated in retained copy
Connected matters: None recorded
Relevant period: See facts and judgment

Read complete judgment PDF Public court copy Official court portal

What happened

A private complainant procured cognizance against company officers for alleged false statements under sections 448 and 451, alongside separate IPC offences. The accused challenged the Special Court proceedings; the Telangana High Court had declined to quash them.

Questions before the court

Could a private complaint sustain cognizance of Companies Act offences that entail liability under section 447, and what happens to the distinct IPC allegations?

Why the court ruled this way

Controlling point

Order and next steps

Appeals partly allowed. Companies Act proceedings under sections 448 and 451 and their consequential orders were quashed; the remaining IPC complaint was transferred to the competent territorial court within four weeks for decision on its own merits. No costs.

Practical implications

The operative result is case-specific: Appeals partly allowed. Companies Act proceedings under sections 448 and 451 and their consequential orders were quashed; the remaining IPC complaint was transferred to the competent territorial court within four weeks for decision on its own merits. No costs. Apply it within the court’s stated limit: The Court did not decide whether the IPC accusations were true. A later September 2026 review dismissal clarified the Centre’s power to authorise another officer; check that later order before citation.

Limits of this ruling

The Court did not decide whether the IPC accusations were true. A later September 2026 review dismissal clarified the Centre’s power to authorise another officer; check that later order before citation.

Law and judgment source

Companies Act, 2013, sections 212(6), 447, 448, 451
Indian Penal Code offences

The linked PDF is a complete public court-copy document. The official court portal is provided for independent verification; a stable judgment-specific official link was not independently established. The discovery article concerns a later appeal/review, while the retained PDF and this note concern the earlier HC/SC judgment identified here; check the subsequent proceeding separately.

Source checked: 2026-09-26 · Judgment paragraphs: paragraphs 59–60 · Later case history: later history recorded. A later review or appeal was located; the disclosed subsequent proceeding must be checked for its current outcome.

This page is informational. Verify the current official court record, subsequent history and applicable law, and obtain professional advice for a specific matter.