9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1924X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, which has been registered as RCT No.3005097/2014. It is claimed that cheque of Rs.8 Lacks has been executed by the petitioner No.2 on 19.05.2013 in favor of the respondent and same was placed for encashment which was dishonored . The complainant No.1 is the Construction company and complainant No.2 is one of the partners of the complainant. Allegedly the cheque was signed by petitioner No.2 on behalf of the petitioner No.1 company as per allegation made by the complainant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act dated 30.08.2013 but the respondent has not made it clear that the petitioner No.2 was incharge of the affairs of the company and day to day busines ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime, the trial Court committed error in taking cognizance of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint filed against the petitioner was dismissed. The Apex Court in the case of National Small Industries Corporation Limited Vs Harmeet Singh Paintal and another reported as 2010 (3) MPLJ SC 86, laid down the following principle in respect of vicarious liabilities of the director and the requirements in this regard by holding as under:- i) The primary responsibility is on the complainant to make specific averments as are required under the law in the complaint so as to make the accused vicariously liable. For fastening the criminal liability, there is not presumption that every Director knows about the transactio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such cases." Since the complaint dated 30.8.2013 in the present case does not contain specific averments against the present petitioner as required under the law, therefore, the trial Court could not have taken cognizance against the present petitioner No.2 Sagufta Shahin. The vicarious liabilities on the petitioner has not been clearly pleaded in the memo of complaint. There is no allegation also that the petitioner was in charge and responsible for conduct of petitioner No.1/company at the relevant time. In view of the above, the order impugned taking cognizance of the offence is not proper, therefore, the complaint case i.e. RCT No.3005097/2014 is not maintainable and exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the same is quash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
