9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 396X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . N. Prakash, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. Sai For the Respondent : Mr. Narendran ORDER It is the case of the complainant/M/s. Rendington (India) Ltd., that they are engaged in the business of distribution of computers and computer peripherals and related products for various multi-national companies; that the first accused/M/s. Sai Infosystem (India) Limited had purchased Wipro Computers and Monitors, IBM Software E- Licences, etc., for a period of time under various invoices, towards which a sum of ₹ 4,06,52,202/- was due. Towards the said liability, M/s. Sai Infosystem (India) Limited /A-1 have issued the impugned cheque dated 15.07.2013 for ₹ 4,06,52,202/- in favour of M/s. Rendington (India) Ltd., /Complai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om M/s. Sai Inforsystem (India) Limited/A-1 on 17.05.2013 and therefore, he would not be liable: (d) the complaint lacks necessary averments as required under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act to fasten vicarious liability on Prem Behl. Reliance was placed on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SMS Pharmaceuticals Vs. Neeta Bhalla and Anr. reported in (2005) 8 SCC 89; in National Small Industries Corp. Ltd., Vs. Harmeet Singh Paintal and Anor. reported in (2010) 3 SCC 330; and in Pooja Rvinder Devidasani Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2014 16 SCC 1. 5. Per contra, Mr.Narendran, learned counsel for the respondent refuted each of the above submissions and his contention will be discussed below:- (a) It is t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany, there are nine accused in this case. If all the nine accused are actively involved in the day today affairs of the Company, the complaint will include them also as Accused. Just because, all of them have been referred to as persons, who had transacted the business with the complainant, this Court cannot give a finding that those averments are not worthy of acceptance. 8. The burden is on the complainant to adduce evidence to justify the averments in the complaint. If the complaint is lacking in averments, that can be good reason to quash the proceeding. However, when the complaint is replete with averments, it will be beyond the scope of this Court acting under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to give a declaration that those averments ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dence on record to show that there is any act committed by the appellant from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the appellant could be vicariously held liable for the offence with which she is charged. 11. Pooja Ravinder Devidasani case has to be understood in the context in which the prosecution was laid. Thus, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case to quash the prosecution at the threshold since there are prima facie allegations in the complaint against the petitioner. 12. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. However, the presence of the petitioner before the Trial Court is dispensed with on condition that the petitioner shall appear before the trial Court within a period of two ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
