2025 (1) TMI 414 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of cheque - vicarious liability of partners of the accused-firm - whether this Court can exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code (Section 528 of the BNSS) for quashing the complaint bearing no. 4971/2020 and impugned order dated 3rd August, 2023? - HELD THAT - It is imperative to understand the scope of interference of this Court under Section 482 of the Code i.e., Section 528 of the BNSS, wherein, this Court is bestowed with the inherent jurisdiction to exercise its powers to either prevent any abuse of process of law or secure the ends of justice . However, the said terminologies are devoid of any specific definition due to its wide ambit and therefore, the determination as to whether the case falls within the scope of the aforesaid term lies with the Court and must be testified based on the established principles of law. Moreover, under this provision, the Court must exercise its powers sparingly, cautiously and in exigent cases. The Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash complaints and criminal proceedings emanating therefrom, if it does not constitute a prima facie offence against the accused and the same was elaborately dealt with by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of INDIAN OIL CORPORATION VERSUS NEPC INDIA LTD ORS 2006 (7) TMI 575 - SUPREME COURT . Considering the peculiar factual situation, the demand notice dated 1st September, 2020 issued under Section 138 of the NI Act is within the prescribed time and despite the service of the same on the petitioners, no amount was paid by the petitioners. Therefore, an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act has been made out against the petitioners - Now coming to Section 141 of the NI Act, it is observed that when a company commits an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, any person who is in charge of or responsible for the conduct of the affairs of the company shall be held guilty of the offence. However, if it is proved that the said offence is committed without the knowledge, the said person cannot be made liable. Therefore, the burden of proving the same lies on such person claiming such defence. It is a settled principle of law that under Section 138 of the NI Act, only a drawer of the cheque is liable for the dishonour of the said cheque. In this case, Mr. Harkaran Singh has issued cheque nos. (a), (b), (d), (e) (g), (h) and (i) in his personal capacity and not in the name of the firm and hence, the petitioners, as partners of the accused-firm, cannot be made to share the liability for the dishonour of said cheques. However, Mr. Harkaran Singh has issued cheque nos. (c) and (f) to the complainant as an Authorised Signatory on behalf of the accused-firm. Therefore, the learned Revisional Court has rightly observed that a prima facie case has already been made out under Sections 138/141 of the NI Act against the petitioners only with respect to cheque nos. (c) and (f). Conclusion - This Court is of the considered view that the learned Revisional Court has not committed any error or illegality in passing the impugned order and therefore, this Court does not find any reason to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code to grant the reliefs prayed for. The impugned order passed by the learned Session Judge, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in criminal revision petition bearing no. 455/2022 is, hereby, upheld - Petition dismissed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

• Whether the petitioners can be held liable under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) for the dishonour of cheques issued by the accused-firm.
• Whether the complaint and proceedings against the petitioners can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).
• Whether the issuance of a single demand notice for multiple dishonoured cheques, presented on different dates, is valid under the NI Act.
• Whether the petitioners, as partners of the accused-firm, were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the firm's business at the time of the offence.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Liability under Sections 138 and 141 of the NI Act

• Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 138 of the NI Act deals with the dishonour of cheques, while Section 141 addresses the liability of company officers. The court referenced precedents such as Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited and Susela Padmavathy Amma v. Bharti Airtel Limited to interpret these provisions.
• Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court examined whether the petitioners were in charge of and responsible for the firm's affairs at the time of the offence. It emphasized that mere directorship or partnership does not automatically imply liability unless there is active involvement in the company's day-to-day operations.
• Key evidence and findings: The court found that the petitioners were involved in the transaction from the beginning, indicating their active role in the firm's affairs.
• Application of law to facts: The court applied the principles from precedents to determine that a prima facie case under Sections 138 and 141 was made out against the petitioners for two specific cheques issued by the firm.
• Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioners argued lack of involvement and specific averments in the complaint. The court found the complaint sufficiently detailed to establish their involvement.
• Conclusions: The court concluded that a prima facie case exists against the petitioners under Sections 138 and 141 of the NI Act for specific cheques.

Issue 2: Quashing of Complaint and Proceedings

• Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 482 of the Code allows the court to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process or to secure justice. The court referenced the principles established in Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited.
• Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court emphasized that its inherent powers should be exercised sparingly and only in cases where no prima facie offence is made out.
• Key evidence and findings: The court found that the Revisional Court's order was based on a valid prima facie case against the petitioners.
• Application of law to facts: The court determined that the petitioners' involvement and the issuance of cheques by the firm justified the continuation of proceedings.
• Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioners' arguments for quashing were dismissed as the court found sufficient grounds for the proceedings to continue.
• Conclusions: The court upheld the Revisional Court's order and dismissed the petition for quashing the complaint and proceedings.

Issue 3: Validity of Single Demand Notice for Multiple Cheques

• Relevant legal framework and precedents: The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 of N.I. Act 1881 regarding the treatment of cheques arising from a single transaction.
• Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court held that cheques from the same transaction can be treated as one subject matter, allowing for a single demand notice.
• Key evidence and findings: The court noted that the cheques were part of the same transaction related to the possession of property.
• Application of law to facts: The court found the single demand notice valid as it pertained to cheques from a single transaction.
• Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioners' argument against the single notice was dismissed based on the transaction's unified nature.
• Conclusions: The court concluded that the single demand notice was valid under the circumstances.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "Section 141 is a penal provision creating vicarious liability, and which, as per settled law, must be strictly construed."
• Core principles established: The court reaffirmed that liability under Sections 138 and 141 requires active involvement in the firm's affairs and that cheques from a single transaction can be addressed with one demand notice.
• Final determinations on each issue: The court upheld the Revisional Court's order, found a prima facie case against the petitioners for specific cheques, and validated the single demand notice approach.