2022 (4) TMI 1602 - HC - Indian Laws

Vicarious liability of Director of the Company - failure to reply to statutory notice - Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is the Director of the Company, but she was not in-charge of the day to day affairs of the Company - HELD THAT - On consideration of the rival submissions and on perusal of the records, the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner cannot at all be considered at this stage. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Respondent, this subject matter is to be considered during trial before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. In the light of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS VERSUS CH. BHAJAN LAL AND ANOTHER 1992 (12) TMI 234 - SUPREME COURT , to the Hon'ble High Court regarding the quashing of criminal complaint. What are all argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner can be agitated as valuable defence of the Accused before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. These Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed with direction to the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai to proceed with the trial and dispose of the case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order or from the date of uploading this order on the website of this Court.

Summary

Issues:
Petition to quash criminal complaints in C.C.Nos.3151 & 3150 of 2017 before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a Director of the Company, sought to quash the criminal complaint on the grounds that she was not in charge of the day-to-day affairs of the Company, as stated in the filed papers. The argument was based on the lack of averments in the complaint showing her responsibility for the conduct of the business, apart from her directorship. The Respondent, however, contended that the issue of responsibility should be addressed during trial and not at the stage of exercising discretion under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The High Court, after considering the submissions, held that the matter of responsibility should be dealt with during trial before the Metropolitan Magistrate, in line with the guidelines from the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, directing the Metropolitan Magistrate to proceed with the trial and dispose of the case within three months.

The Respondent informed the Court that the case had been transferred to the Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court – III, Saidapet. The Fast Track Court was directed to dispose of the case within three months and advised to consider any petitions seeking exemption from personal appearance, given the absence of dispute regarding the identity of the Accused.