2022 (11) TMI 1489 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - Validity of proceedings arising out of a recall to non bailable warrants without challenging the summoning order - vicarious liability of appellant - HELD THAT - Since applicant has not challenged summoning order, which can be challenged by way of filing revision before Court below, therefore, to deal the challenge of summoning order directly before this Court in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. will cause prejudice as a forum will not be available to applicant and this Court also will not have benefit of a judgment. It is also placed on record that NCLT has passed an order with regard to moratorium. Therefore, without entering into merit of the case, the non-bailable warrants issued against applicant and further proceedings in Shridev Sharma vs. Anurag Wadhwa and another, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, is kept in abeyance for a period of six weeks from today. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to proceedings arising from recall of non-bailable warrants without challenging the summoning order; Applicant's vicarious liability in a case under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act.

Challenge to proceedings arising from recall of non-bailable warrants without challenging the summoning order:
The High Court of Allahabad heard arguments from the applicant's counsel, the learned AGA for the State, and the counsel for the Opposite Parties. Initially, the application challenged the proceedings stemming from a recall of non-bailable warrants without contesting the summoning order. Subsequently, an amendment application was filed to challenge the summoning order, although it was not allowed at the present stage. The applicant's counsel cited judgments from the Supreme Court to argue that the applicant cannot be held vicariously liable in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as he is not an accused. The opposing counsel vehemently opposed these submissions. The Court noted that since the summoning order was not challenged, it could be contested by filing a revision before the lower court. Directly addressing the challenge to the summoning order in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be prejudicial as it would deprive the applicant of a forum and the Court of the benefit of a judgment. It was also mentioned that the NCLT had issued an order regarding a moratorium.

Applicant's vicarious liability in a case under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act:
Without delving into the merits of the case, the High Court ordered that the non-bailable warrants issued against the applicant and further proceedings in Criminal Revision No. 119 of 2022 be kept in abeyance for six weeks. During this period, the applicant was directed to appear and file a bail application, which would be considered in accordance with the law. The applicant was also given the liberty to challenge the summoning order before the appropriate forum, with a mandate that any such challenge must be decided within four weeks of filing. The application was disposed of accordingly.