9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1924X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is no allegation also that the petitioner was in charge and responsible for conduct of petitioner No.1/company at the relevant time. The order impugned taking cognizance of the offence is not proper - the complaint case is not maintainable and exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the same is quashed. - MCRC-3113-2018 - - - Dated:- 26-4-2018 - SUSHIL KUMAR PALO, JUDGE Shri Rahul Diwakar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondent fails to mark appearance despite services. ORDER Heard finally at motion stage. This petition under Section 482 has been filed to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court and to quash the Criminal Complaint case bearing RCT No.3005097/2014 pending before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On behalf of the petitioner, reliance has been placed on M.A. Harin Iqbal and Another Vs. Hiralal Daheria and Another M.Cr.C. No.1758/2015 decided on 14.11.2017, whereby reliance has been placed in the case Standard Chartered Bank Vs. State of Maharastra repored in (2016) 6 SCC 62 and held that the basic allegation required for prosecuting the applicant is missing on the complaint and the applicant cannot be prosecuted merely because they are the partners of the firm. In Case of Sonali Thanewala Vs. Rahul Gining Industries reported as 2015 (1) MPLJ 117, a coordinate bench of this Court held that petitioner/director of the company has been arrayed as a party. Petitioner neither signed the cheque in question nor there is allegation tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted by the company along with averments in the petition containing that the accused were in charge of and responsible for the business of the company and by virtue of their position they are liable to be proceeded with. iv) Vicarious liability on the part of a person must be pleaded an proved and not inferred. v) If the accused is a managing Director or a Joint Managing Director then it is not necessary to make specific averment in the complaint and by virtue of their position they are liable to be proceeded with. vi) If the accused is a Director or an officer of a company who signed the cheques on behalf of the company then also it is not necessary to make specific averment in the complaint. vii) The person sought to be made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
