Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2021 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 197 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - power of attorney had personal knowledge in respect of the transaction or not - vicarious liability can be created by the complainants or not - HELD THAT - In a case, where the Director or an officer of the company who has signed the cheque on behalf of the company, there would not be any need to make any specific averments that they were in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company nor would necessary to make any specific allegation about consent, connivance or negligence. The very fact that the dishonoured cheque was signed by him on behalf of the company would give rise to the responsibility under Sub-Section (2) of Section 141 of the NI Act. The learned Trial Court Judge, has specifically dealt with the averments made by the complainant and the documents referred and has categorized the role of each of the accused before ordering issuance of the summons against accused nos.1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 of the complaint. Role of the petitioner nos.1 and 2 as accused nos.3 and 4 has been specified in the complaint and the learned Judge has taken cognizance of the fact and as rightly issued the summons against those accused- learned advocate for the petitioners has raised the issue about issuance of process against the accused persons under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code beyond the territorial limits of the Court. Those are issues not required to be dealt with under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This Court does not find any reason to interfere in the matter. In the result, present application is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of Criminal Case No. 4448 of 2019 under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Validity of the complaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 3. Role and liability of the petitioners in the alleged offence. 4. Compliance with procedural requirements under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashing of Criminal Case No. 4448 of 2019 under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code: The petitioners sought to quash the criminal case registered against them, arguing that the cheques in question were not signed by them and that the complaint did not establish their involvement or knowledge of the transaction. They contended that the learned Magistrate failed to apply judicial mind and issued the process without sufficient grounds, causing undue hardship and trauma. 2. Validity of the complaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: The complaint was filed for dishonour of cheques issued by M/s Prisha Properties (India) Private Limited, which led to the initiation of the criminal case. The petitioners argued that they were not directors of the company and had no role in the issuance of the cheques. The complainant, represented by a power of attorney holder, did not have personal knowledge of the transaction, making the complaint invalid. The petitioners relied on the case of A. C. Narayanan vs. State of Maharashtra to support their argument. 3. Role and liability of the petitioners in the alleged offence: The petitioners were shown as former partners of a partnership firm that was later converted into the accused company. The learned advocate for the respondents argued that the petitioners were key persons handling the affairs of the company and were vicariously liable for the offence. The learned Judge observed that the complaint and supporting documents indicated the petitioners' involvement in the company's business, making them responsible for the conduct of the company's affairs. The Judge found the submissions against the petitioners just and sufficient to issue summons. 4. Compliance with procedural requirements under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code: The petitioners argued that the trial court did not follow the requirements under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as the accused were not residents of the court's territorial jurisdiction. However, the learned Judge found that this issue was not required to be dealt with under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Conclusion: The High Court found no reason to interfere with the trial court's decision to issue summons against the petitioners. The court observed that the trial court had appropriately considered the averments and documents before issuing the summons. The application to quash the criminal case was dismissed, and the interim relief was vacated. The request to stay the execution of the order was also denied, allowing the trial to proceed. Final Order: The application was dismissed, notice discharged, and interim relief vacated. The request for a stay of execution was denied, and the trial was allowed to commence.
|