Rayan S/O Nambi Puruam Salivati vs State Of Gujarat

Gujarat High Court

Rayan S/O Nambi Puruam Salivati vs State Of Gujarat on 2 May, 2025

                                                                                                                  NEUTRAL CITATION




                         R/SCR.A/7019/2018                                      CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025

                                                                                                                  undefined




                                                                             Reserved On   : 16/04/2025
                                                                             Pronounced On : 02/05/2025

                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                            R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 7019 of 2018

                                                         With
                                    R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 7018 of 2018

                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

                       ==========================================================

                                    Approved for Reporting                     Yes            No

                       ==========================================================
                                               RAYAN S/O NAMBI PURUAM SALIVATI
                                                            Versus
                                                  STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR MIHIR JOSHI, SR. ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY MS. NISHA OJHA AND
                       MS. VINISHA JAIN FOR M/S WADIAGHANDY AND CO(5679) for the
                       Applicant(s) No. 1
                       KSHITIJ M AMIN(7572) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
                       MR SOHAM JOSHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI


                                                            CAV JUDGMENT

1. Except seminal difference, that Special Criminal Application No.7018 of 2018 is in regard to consolidated financial statement, whereas, Special Criminal Application No.7019 of 2018 is in regard to standalone financial statement, there is no other substantive change in both the petitions challenging questioned Criminal Complaint dated 14.02.2018 Page 1 of 16 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 18:47:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/7019/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined bearing Criminal Enquiry No.147 of 2018 and Criminal Complaint dated 14.02.2018 bearing Criminal Enquiry No.162 of 2018. Hence, with consent of learned advocates for both the sides, both the petitions are decided analogously.

2. Facts of the case are as under :-

2.1. The Respondent No. 2 herein has filed the aforementioned Complaint under Section 143 of the Companies Act, 2013 ("Companies Act") on the allegation that Petitioner, as auditors, have failed to make certain disclosures pertaining to related party transactions in the financial statements and are therefore in contravention of Section 143 of the Companies Act and thus liable to be prosecuted under Section 147(2) of the Companies Act. It is further submitted that allegations made against Petitioner, if proven, amount to imposition of a civil penalty at best and therefore the entire proceeding is sans jurisdiction.

Hence, present petitions.

3. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mihir Joshi assisted by learned advocate Ms.Nisha Ojha and learned advocate Ms.Vinisha Jain for the petitioners would submit two fold submissions in seeking quashment of Criminal Complaints. He would submit that M/s. Deloitte Haskins and Sells - partnership firm was appointed as auditors for Mafatlal Industries Limited for the year 2013- 2014, 2014 - 2015 and 2015 - 2016. He would submit that show cause notice was issued on 22.03.2017 by Regional Director to M/s. Deloitte Haskins seeking clarification as to why in related party transaction, name of Shri Page 2 of 16 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 18:47:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/7019/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined Priyavarta Mafatlal is mentioned as "relative of individual having significant influence" but no description of "relative" is given and as such it is violation of Accounting Standard 18. It is submitted that on the basis of above violation, prosecution is launched against Mr.R.Salivatri petitioner herein who was partner in M/s. Deloitte Haskins. However, prosecution is not launched against firm viz. Deloitte Haskins but against petitioner in his personal capacity.

3.1. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Joshi submits that complaint fails to mention at any place as to how the petitioner is personally involved in commission of alleged offence. It is submitted that the petitioner cannot be held vicariously liable in his personal capacity for alleged offence committed by M/s. Deloitte Haskins - partnership firm. He would submit that prosecution against the petitioner in his personal capacity is not tenable.

3.2. Referring to judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sharad Kumar Sanghi v/s. Sangita Rane [(2015) 12 SCC 781], more particularly, para 9 to 11 thereof, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Joshi submitted that in absence of any specific allegations against the petitioner, without making any allegations against company and arraigning company / partnership firm as accused, petitioner cannot be held liable and therefore, complaint needs to be quashed.

3.3. It is further submitted by learned Senior Advocate Mr.Joshi that section 143 of the Companies Act, which was in force at the Page 3 of 16 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 18:47:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/7019/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined time of alleged violation talks about role, duties and responsibilities of the Auditor, which in the present is M/s. Deloitte Haskins. He would submit that section 147(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 also provides consequence of non compliance of section 143 which are to be borne by auditor and not by Director / partner of Company. He would further refer to Accounting Standard 18 (at page no.59 of the petition) and submit that definition of relative is mentioned there and it indicates no requirement of degree of relative to be disclosed. Therefore, he submits that prosecution against the petitioner for non disclosure of relative of individual having significant influence deserves to be quashed.

3.4. Making above submissions, it is submitted to allow the petitions and quash the complaints.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Kshitij Amin appearing for other side submitted that violation of Accounting Standard 18 is prima facie visible. Relationship of Mr. Priyavarta Mafatlal is not mentioned in the audit report and it clearly attracts violation of section 129 and 133 of Companies Act, 2013. Complaint was filed and the learned Trial Court has taken cognizance of it and therefore, the complaints should not be quashed at threshold.

4.1. Making above submissions it is submitted to dismiss the petitions.

5. Learned APP would adopt the arguments of learned advocate Mr.Amin for respondent no.2.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/7019/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined

6. I have heard learned advocates for both the sides and gone through record of the present case. As per section 206(5) of the Companies Act, Books of Accounts and other records of the Company was to be inspected by officer appointed by Central Government. Record indicates that Inspecting Officer pointed out violation of section 143 of the Companies Act, 2013 as under :-

"During the inspection of books of accounts and financial statements of the company, it was observed from the Note No. 31.5 of notes on financial statements for the year ended 31.03.2014, 31.03.2015 and 31.03.2016 that as per clause 23 of AS 18, if there has been transactions between related parties during the existence of a related party relationship, the reporting enterprises should disclose the following:

1. Name of the transacting related party;

II. A description of relationship between the parties, etc. However is the details of related party in related party transaction disclosure name of Sh. Priyavrate H Mafetiel, relative of individual having significant influence was given but no description of relationship between the parties was given, there by violating the provisions Section 129.133 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with AS-18. You being the auditor have not reported the same in your report the said violation for respective financial year. Therefore, there is violation of section 143 of the Companies Act, 2013 and liable for penal action under section 147 of the Act."

7. In view of aforesaid violation, show cause notice was issued by Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs to M/s. Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Copy of the same has been send to M/s. Deloitte Haskins, Chartered Accounts - Auditors.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/7019/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined

8. In show cause notice, it is stated that there is non compliance of section 143 of the Companies Act which is stated as above.

9. Two things, aptly can be noticed from the aforesaid that show cause notice was not given to the petitioner but it was to M/s. Deloitte Haskins and Sell, which establish that the petitioner has not been set to motion for launching prosecution. M/s. Deloitte Haskins is held for violation of Accounting Standard resulting into violation of section 143 of the Companies Act having its punishment in section 147. Secondly, it could be noticed that name of transacting related party and description of relationship between the parties is not mentioned.

10. In order to attract punishment stated in section 147 of the Companies Act, 2013, whereby it is stated that audit of the company being conducted by audit firm, it is proved that the partner or partners of the audit firm has or have acted in fraudulent manner or abetted or colluded in any fraud by or in relation to or by the company or its directions or officers. Section 147(5) of the Companies Act reads as under :-

"(5) Where, in case of audit of a company being conducted by audit firm, it is proved that the partner or partners of the audit firm has or have acted in fraudulent manner or abetted or colluded in any fraud by or in relation to or by the company or its directors or officers, the liability, whether civil or criminal as provided in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, for such act shall be of the partner or partners concerned of the audit firm and of the firm jointly and severally".

NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/7019/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined

11. In order to bring partner or partner of the partnership firm within outline of civil or criminal liability, it has to be proved that they have acted in fraudulent manner or colluded in any fraud. If it is not proved then partner cannot be held for punishment under section 139 to 146 of Companies Act.

12. In the case of Sharad Kumar Sanghi (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court in para 9 to 13 has held as under :-

"9. The allegations which find place against the Managing Director in his personal capacity, as we notice, are absolutely vague. When a complainant intends to proceed against the Managing Director or any officer of a company, it is essential to make requisite allegation to constitute the vicarious liability. In Maksud Sajyad vs. State of Gujarat (2008) 5SCC 668, it has been held, thus:

"Where a jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint petition filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind. The Penal Code does not contain any provision for attaching vicarious liability on the part of the Managing Director or the Directors of the Company when the accused is the Company.

The learned Magistrate failed to pose unto himself the correct question viz. as to whether the complaint petition, even if given face value and taken to be correct in its entirety, would lead to the conclusion that the respondents herein were personally liable for any offence. The Bank is a body corporate. Vicarious liability of the Managing Director and Director would arise provided any provision exists in that behalf in the statute. Statutes indisputably must contain provision fixing such vicarious liabilities. Even for the said purpose, it is obligator on the part of the complainant to make requisite allegations which would attract the provisions constituting vicarious liability."

NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/7019/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined In this regard, reference to a three-Judge Bench decision in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla and Another (2005) 8 SCC 89 would be apposite. While dealing with an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Court explaining the duty of a Magistrate while issuing process and his power to dismiss a complaint under Section 203 without even issuing process observed thus:-

".... a complaint must contain material to enable the Magistrate to make up his mind for issuing process. If this were not the requirement, conse- quences could be far- reaching. If a Magistrate had to issue process in every case, the burden of work before the Magistrate as well as the harass- ment caused to the respondents to whom process is issued would be tremendous. Even Section 204 of the Code starts with the words "if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding"

The words "sufficient ground for proceeding" again suggest that ground should be made out in the complaint for proceeding against the respondent. It is settled law that at the time of issuing of the process the Magistrate is required to see only the allegations in the complaint and where allegations in the complaint or the charge-sheet do not constitute an offence against a person, the complaint is liable to be dismissed." After so stating, the Court analysed Section 141 of the Act and after referring to certain other authorities answered a refer- ent and relevant part of the answer reads as follows:-

"It is necessary to specifically aver in a complaint under Section 141 that at the time the offence was committed, the person accused was in charge of, and responsible for the conduct of business of the company. This averment is an es- sential requirement of Section 141 and has to be made in a complaint. Without this averment be- ing made in a complaint, the requirements of Section 141 cannot be said to be satisfied."

10. The same principle has been reiterated in S.K. Alagh v. State of UP3; Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. v. Datar Switchgear Ltd. (2008) 5 SCC 662 Page 8 of 16 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 18:47:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/7019/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined and Employees Stock Option Trust v. India Infoline Ltd. (2013) 4 SCC 505.

11. In the case at hand as the complainant's initial statement would reflect, the allegations are against the company, but the company has not been made arrayed as a party. Therefore, the allegations have to be restricted to the Managing Director. As we have noted earlier, allegations are vague and in fact, principally the allegations are against the company. There is no specific allegation against the Managing Director. When a company has not been arrayed as a party, no proceeding can be initiated against it even where vicarious liability is fastened on certain statutes. It has been so held by a three-Judge Bench in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited (2012) 5 SCC 661 in the context of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

12. At this juncture, it is interesting to note, as we have stated earlier, that the learned Magistrate while passing the order dated 22.10.2001, had opined, thus :-

"It appears prima-facie from the complaint filed by the complainant, documents, evidence and arguments that accused company has committed cheating with the complaint by delivering old and accidented vehicle to her at the cost of a new 5 (2013) 4 SCC 505 6 (2012) 5 SCC 661 truck. Accordingly, prima-facie sufficient grounds exist for registration of a complaint against the accused U/s. 420 of I.P.C. and is accordingly registered."

13. When the company has not been arraigned as an accused, such an order could not have been passed. We have said so for the sake of comp 4leteness. In the ultimate analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court should have been well advised to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant and that having not been done, the order is sensitively vulnerable and accordingly we set aside the same and quash the criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent against the appellant."

13. Therefore, it is sine qua non requirement that company should be arraigned as an accused to rope criminal liability upon Page 9 of 16 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 18:47:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/7019/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined its partners or directors, in absentia, partner or director cannot be held vicariously liable. Proposition laid down in aforesaid case is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.

14. In Narendra Kumar A Baldota v/s. State of Karnataka [2022 SCC Online SC 1880], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in para 25 to 28 as under :-

"25. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. To set Criminal law into motion, the order of the Magistrate summoning the accused, must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case. Before the Magistrate issues summons to a Chairman, Managing Director, Director or any other official of the company, the Magistrate has to record his satisfaction of a prima facie case against him/her in his/her own capacity is sine qua non for initiation of criminal proceedings against a Chairman, Managing Director or officer of a company. It is well settled that no official of a company can be dragged into criminal proceedings only in his/her capacity as official of the company, without any specific role attributed to him/her in relation to the offence alleged against the company.

26. In Ravindranatha Bajpe v. Mangalore Special Economic Zone Limited and Others1, this Court held:-

"......All of them are arrayed as an accused as Chairman, Managing Director, Deputy General Manager (Civil & Env.), Planner & Executor, Chairman and Executive Director respectively. Therefore, as such, in absence of any specific allegations and the specific role attributed to them, the learned Magistrate was not justified in issuing process against accused nos. 1 to 8 for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 447, 506 and 120B read with Section 34 IPC.

26. As observed by this Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 and even thereafter in catena of decisions, summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal Page 10 of 16 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 18:47:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/7019/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined Law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. In paragraph 1 2021 SCC Online SC 806 28 in Pepsi Foods Limited (supra), it is observed and held as under: "28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused."

27. As held by this Court in the case of India Infoline Limited (supra), in the order issuing summons, the learned Magistrate has to record his satisfaction about a prima facie case against the accused who are Managing Director, the Company Secretary and the Directors of the Company and the role played by them in their respective capacities which is sine qua non for initiating criminal proceedings against them. Looking to the averments and the allegations in the complaint, there are no specific allegations and/or averments with respect to role played by them in their capacity as Chairman, Managing Director, Executive Director, Deputy General Manager and Planner & Executor. Merely because they are Chairman, Managing Director/Executive Director and/or Deputy General Manager and/or Planner/Supervisor of A1 & A6, without any specific role attributed and the role played by them in their capacity, they cannot be arrayed as an accused, more particularly they cannot be held vicariously liable for the offences committed by A1 & A6."

NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/7019/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined

27. In Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat2, this Court held:-

"13. Where a jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint petition filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind. The Penal Code does not contain any provision for attaching vicarious liability on the part of the Managing Director or the Directors of the Company when the accused is the Company. The learned Magistrate failed to pose unto himself the correct question viz. as to whether the complaint petition, even if given face value and taken to be correct in its entirety, would lead to the conclusion that the respondents herein were personally liable for any offence. The Bank is a body corporate. Vicarious liability of the Managing Director and Director would arise provided any provision exists in that behalf in the statute. Statutes indisputably 2 (2008) 5 SCC 668 must contain provision fixing such vicarious liabilities. Even for the said purpose, it is obligatory on the part of the complainant to make requisite allegations which would attract the provisions constituting vicarious liability."

28. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal3 this Court held:-

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie Page 12 of 16 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 18:47:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/7019/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

....

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

....

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

.....

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

15. Therefore, prosecution against the petitioner who is partner of M/s. Deloitte Haskins without joining partnership firm is not maintainable. Some relevant provisions of Accounting Standard 18 reads as under :-

"10.1 Related party - parties are considered to be related if at any time during the reporting period one party has the ability to control the other party or exercise significant influence over the other party in making financial and / or operating decisions.

10.2. Related party transaction - a transfer of resources or obligations between related parties, regardless of whether or not a price is charged.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/7019/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined 10.3. Control (a) - ownership, directly or indirectly, of more than one half of the voting power of an enterpirse or

(b) control of the composition of the board of directors in the case of a company or of the composition of the corresponding governing body in case of any other enterprise or

(c) a substantial interest in voting power and the power to direct, by statute or agreement, the financial and /or operating policies of the enterprise.

10.5. An associate - an enterprise in which an investing reporting party has significant influence and which is neither a subsidiary nor a joint venture of that party.

10.9. Relative - in relation to an individual, means the spouse, son, daughter, brother, sister, father and mother who may be expected to influence, or be influenced by that individual in his / her dealings with the reporting enterprise."

16. Coming back to case on hand, it is case of prosecution that description of relationship between the parties is not mentioned in Annual / Audit Report. Audit report is produced on record at Annexure G Colly. In column for related parties transaction, in clause F, name of Priyavratra Mafatlal is stated to be relative of individual having significant influence. Degree of relationship between relative is not mentioned in the audit report. According to prosecution not naming relationship between relative attracts offence. Noticably, definition of relative is given in Accounting Standard 18. It defines related party and related party transaction as above. When degree of relative is specifically defined in clause 10.9, in column of relative, there is no Page 14 of 16 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 18:47:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/7019/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined requirement of mentioning degree of relative separately or to say relationship of Priyavratra Mafatlal individual having significant influence separately.

17. In view of above, prosecution against petitioner is found to be malicious and deserves to be quashed.

18. In the case of G.Sagar Suri v/s, State of UP [(2000) 2 SCC 636], the Hon'ble Apex Court adjudicating the liability of Director in proceedings under section 420 of IPC held as under :-

"8. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised with great care. In exercise of its jurisdiction the High Court is not to examine the matter superficially. It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

---

14. We agree with the submission of the appellants that the whole attempt of the complainant is evidently to rope in all the members of the family particularly those who are the parents of the Managing Director of Ganga Automobiles Ltd. in the instant criminal case without regard to their role or participation in the alleged offences with the sole purpose of getting the loan due to the Finance Company by browbeating and tyrannising the appellants with criminal prosecution. A criminal Page 15 of 16 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 18:47:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/7019/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is already pending against the appellants and other accused. They would suffer the consequences if offence under Section 138 is proved against them. In any case there is no occasion for the complainant to prosecute the appellants under Sections 406/420 IPC and in his doing so it is clearly an abuse of the process of law and prosecution against the appellants for those offences is liable to be quashed, which we do."

19. While examining the questioned complaint in light of aforesaid law, this Court is of the opinion that petitioner who has been joined in individual capacity without joining M/s. Deloitte Haskins as accused, is not needed to be send for facing trial.

20. In view of above, the petitions are allowed. The Criminal Complaint dated 14.02.2018 bearing Criminal Enquiry No.147 of 2018 in Criminal Case No.25079 of 2018 and Criminal Complaint dated 14.02.2018 bearing Criminal Enquiry No.162 of 2018 in Criminal Case No.25087 of 2018 pending before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad as well as all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicant. Direct service is permitted.

(J. C. DOSHI,J) SATISH Page 16 of 16 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 18:47:27 IST 2025