The petitioner was neither the signatory nor the proprietor of ...

Company official wrongly summoned for bounced check; High Court quashes proceedings citing lack of evidence.

Case Laws     Indian Laws

October 19, 2024

The petitioner was neither the signatory nor the proprietor of the firm that issued the cheques in question. Before summoning an individual to face criminal trial, the Magistrate must find prima facie legally admissible evidence attributing a role that constitutes a penal offense. In this case, the complainant did not provide evidence pointing to the petitioner's criminal liability regarding the cheque. As per the Supreme Court's ruling in Anil Hada v. Indian Acrylic Ltd., if the offense was committed by a company, it can be punished only if the company is prosecuted. If the payee opts to prosecute individuals, they can succeed only by showing the company committed the offense. Continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The High Court invoked its inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 CrPC to quash the summons against the petitioner and all subsequent proceedings. The summoning orders against all petitioners were quashed and set aside, and the petition was allowed.

View Source