9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Invocation of inherent powers under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash proceedings initiated under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Applicability of proceedings under section 22A of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 as a bar for launching criminal prosecution. 3. Liability of directors in cases of dishonored cheques and legal obligations. 4. Interpretation of legal provisions regarding proceedings under SICA and their impact on criminal prosecution. 5. Requirement for Magistrates to consider company's status and BIFR orders before entertaining complaints. Analysis: 1. The petitioners sought to quash proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, invoking inherent powers under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The case involved dishonored cheques issued by the first petitioner-company, leading to a criminal complaint filed by the first respondent-company. The court deliberated on the legality of invoking inherent powers to quash the proceedings, with arguments presented by both parties regarding the liability of the directors and the specific allegations against them. 2. The issue of whether proceedings under section 22A of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 acted as a bar for criminal prosecution was raised. The petitioners contended that SICA proceedings against the first petitioner-company should prevent criminal prosecution. However, the first respondent-company argued that the SICA proceedings did not prohibit business activities and purchases, contrary to the orders passed by SICA, thereby justifying the criminal complaint. 3. The liability of directors in cases of dishonored cheques was a crucial aspect of the judgment. The petitioners argued that only the drawer of the cheques should be held liable, emphasizing the lack of specific allegations against the directors. In contrast, the first respondent-company relied on legal precedents to assert the liability of directors in such cases, citing relevant court decisions to support their stance. 4. The judgment extensively analyzed the legal provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act and its implications on criminal prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Reference was made to a Supreme Court decision highlighting that SICA proceedings alone may not absolve liability under section 138 of the NI Act. The court emphasized the need to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine the impact of SICA proceedings on criminal complaints. 5. The judgment concluded by directing Magistrates to consider the status of companies and any BIFR orders before entertaining complaints. It emphasized the importance of mentioning a company's sickness status and BIFR applications in complaints to avoid complications during legal proceedings. The court highlighted the need for thorough consideration of relevant materials and legal precedents by Magistrates to ensure a fair and informed decision-making process.
|
