Yerram Vijay Kumar v. State of Telangana; 2026 INSC 42- S.212 Companies Act - Cognizance Taking
You can read our notes on this judgment in our Supreme Court Daily Digests. If you are our subscriber, you should get it in our Whatsapp CaseCiter Community at about 9pm on every working day. If you are not our subscriber yet, you can register by clicking here:
Companies Act, 2013: Section 212, 213 447,448- Where the Special Court under the Companies Act is taking cognizance of an offence under a section in the Companies Act which, if proved, would make the person(s) ‘liable under Section 447’ or ‘liable for action under Section 447’, it must also invoke Section 447 with the corresponding section and in such a case, it must comply with the bar against taking cognizance as specified in the second proviso to Section 212(6) of the Companies Act (Para 59)- The offence under Section 448 is an offence ‘covered under Section 447’ of the Companies Act mentioned in Section 212(6), since the offence under Section 448 is inextricably linked to the punishment for ‘fraud’ as mentioned in Section 447 and as such, the second proviso to Section 212(6) of the Companies Act is attracted. (Para 33) The right recourse for a person, who makes an allegation of fraud in the affairs of a company is to file an application under Section 213 of the Companies Act before the NCLT upon satisfying the eligibility under Section 213(a) and 213(b) of the Companies Act. (Para 45)
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - Civil Nature- mere institution or pendency of civil proceedings between the parties cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings instituted by filing a complaint case or to conclude that the dispute is purely civil in nature. (Para 55)
Legal Doctrines - anything that cannot be done directly, also cannot be done indirectly. (Para 43)
Summary- The Supreme Court quashed cognizance under Sections 448 and 451 of the Companies Act, holding that offences “liable under Section 447” trigger the Section 212(6) bar and cannot proceed on a private complaint without an SFIO or authorised Central Government complaint. It directed transfer of the remaining IPC offences (Sections 420, 406, 426, 468, 470, 471, 120B) to a court of proper territorial jurisdiction, clarifying that civil/NCLT proceedings do not preclude criminal trial. The Court emphasized legislative intent post‑2015 amendment, aligned with High Court views, and instructed expeditious adjudication while making no findings on merits of the IPC allegations.
Case Info
Yerram Vijay Kumar v. State of Telangana; 2026 INSC 42; Coram: J.K. Maheshwari, K. Vinod Chandran; Judgment date: January 9, 2026.
Case Details
- Case name: Yerram Vijay Kumar v. State of Telangana; with Rajeev Kumar Agarwal v. State of Telangana & Ors.
- Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 42.
- Coram: J.K. Maheshwari, J.; K. Vinod Chandran, J.
- Judgment date: January 9, 2026.
Caselaws and Citations
- S. Satyanarayana v. Energo Masch Power Engg. & Consulting (P) Ltd., (2015) 13 SCC 1.
- Sumana Paruchuri v. Jakka Vinod Kumar Reddy, 2022:TSHC:30033.
- Sivananda Rajaram v. M/s New Shipping Kaisha Ship Management Pvt. Ltd., Criminal Petition (OP) No. 19154/2021 (Madras HC).
- M. Gopal v. Ganga Reddy, 2022:KHC:35824 (Karnataka HC).
- Yogesh Chander Goyal v. State & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3197.
- Sunil Mandwani v. State of M.P., 2019 SCC OnLine MP 1248.
Statutes/Laws Referred
- Companies Act, 2013: Sections 7(5), 7(6), 8(11), 34, 36, 38(1)(c), 46(5), 56(7), 66(10), 76A, 86(2), 90(12), 140(5), 206, 210, 212(6), 213, 229, 251, 339(3), 436(2), 439(1)-(2), 447, 448, 451.
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 482.
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 420, 406, 426, 468, 470, 471, 120B.
- Companies (Amendment) Act, 2015 (effective 29.05.2015).
- Central Government Notification F. No. 01/12/2009-CL-I (Vol. IV) dated 23.03.2017 (designation of Special Court, Telangana).
