9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Quashing of proceedings under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 - Accused facing a charge under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Resignation of the petitioner from the board of directors - Liability of the petitioner as an ordinary director - Interpretation of section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Invocation of section 141 against all directors - Disputed questions of fact in a petition under section 482. Analysis: The petition sought the quashing of proceedings in a criminal case where the petitioner, as accused No. 5, faced a charge under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant, a company, alleged that the accused defaulted on payments related to a hire-purchase agreement and issued a cheque that bounced due to insufficient funds. The complainant then served a notice under section 138 demanding payment, which the accused failed to comply with, leading to the filing of the complaint. The petitioner contended that he had resigned from the board of directors before the cheque was presented and argued that the criminal proceedings against him should be quashed. The respondent, however, argued that the resignation and the petitioner's role in the company were questions of fact to be determined during the trial, indicating that the proceedings should not be quashed at that stage. The court noted the positions held by the accused within the company, with the petitioner being an ordinary director. It observed that in cases involving a managing director and executive directors, it was unlikely for an ordinary director to be in charge of the company's affairs. The court highlighted the importance of ascertaining the facts before invoking section 141 against directors, cautioning against routinely implicating all directors without proper inquiry. While acknowledging the seriousness of the matter, the court emphasized that disputed questions of fact could not be resolved in a petition under section 482. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition at that stage but directed that the petitioner's personal attendance during the trial was dispensable, allowing representation by his advocate. In conclusion, the judgment underscored the need for a thorough examination of facts before invoking legal provisions against directors and highlighted the limitations of addressing disputed factual issues in a petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
|
