Gujarat High Court
Anish Kasturbhai Shah vs State Of Gujarat on 7 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4040/2018 ORDER DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 4040 of 2018
==========================================================
ANISH KASTURBHAI SHAH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. KUNAL J VYAS(7061) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR WASIM PATHAN FOR MR SATYAM Y CHHAYA(3242) for the
Respondent(s) No. 2
MR SOHAM JOSHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 07/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Vyas for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr.Wasim Pathan for respondent no.2 and learned APP for respondent - State.
2. This petition is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C., where the petitioner seeks quashment of issuance of process in Criminal Case No.59 of 2018 pending before learned Principal Judicial Magistrate, Manasa on the ground that the petitioner is non Executive Director of Anil Limited. He is not in charge of day to day affairs of Anil Limited and therefore, he cannot be prosecuted under section 141 of Negotiable Instrument Act for the complaint filed under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under :-
Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:43:43 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4040/2018 ORDER DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined 3.1. Complainant has filed Criminal Case under section 138 of NI Act against Anil Limited registered under Companies Act against its Directors on the ground that to meet with financial obligation arise from commercial transaction between Ganesh Trading Company and Anil Limited, cheque was given, which was dishonored. Statutory notice was issued but no payment for dishonor of cheque was made within statutory period. Therefore, complaint under section 138 of NI Act was filed before the learned Trial Court. Learned Trial Court after verification tendered by complainant by way of affidavit was pleased to issue process against the accused arraigned in Criminal Case.
4. In aforesaid aspects, petitioner - Anish Shah who is arraigned as accused no.4 in Criminal Case has filed this petition on aforesaid grounds.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioner referred to judgment passed by various High Courts including judgment passed by this Court in favour of the petitioner who is non Executive Director whereby, Anil Limited has been arraigned as accused and petitioner is also arraigned as accused for his vicarious liability as Director of Anil Limited. It is submitted that various High Courts referred to settled legal position of law and held that non Executive Director being independent Director is not liable to be prosecuted under section 141 of NI Act and have quashed complaint against the petitioner. It is therefore, submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that complaint against the petitioner may be quashed.
6. Learned advocate Mr.Pathan for respondent no.2 in given Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:43:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4040/2018 ORDER DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined facts and circumstances of the case submitted to pass necessary order in accordance with law.
7. Learned APP Mr.Joshi adopted the argument of learned advocate Mr.Pathan for respondent no.2.
8. Having heard learned advocates for both sides, this Court refers to document annexed with the petition at Annexure B which indicates that the petitioner has been appointed as non Executive Director and independent Director. Same is also registered in Form No.DIR-11. Date of appointment is 29.12.1998 and his designation is Director in category of independent.
9. This Court in Meghdoot Hiralal Patel v/s. State of Gujarat and Anr. [Criminal Misc. Application No.6387 of 2018] dated 09.04.2025 after referring to judgment in the case of National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. v/s. Harmeet Singh Paintal and Anr. [(2010) 3 SCC 330] and in the case of Susela Padmavathy Amma v/s. M/s. Bharti Airtel Ltd. [2024 (3) SCR 647] in para 10 held as under :-
"10. Coming back to the case on hand, it is noticed that the complainant has stated that accused No.2 is in-charge and responsible for day-to-day affairs of the accused - company. He is the signatory of the cheque in question and he is in charge of management of the accused company. The present petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.4 on the ground that that he was director of the company, cannot to be put to trial because of insufficient averments which are stated in Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:43:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4040/2018 ORDER DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined para 2 of the complaint, in view of specific role alleged to have been played by accused No.2 who has signed the cheque."
10. In view of above without delving further into merits of the case, since irrefutable document on record establish that petitioner was not in-charge of day to day affairs of the company but was non Executive Director being completely independent, the petitioner cannot be put to trial on the ground that he is simply Director of the company.
11. In net result, the petition is allowed. The proceedings being Criminal Case No.59 of 2018 filed before learned Principal Judicial Magistrate, Manasa qua the petitioner is quashed. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) SATISH Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:43:43 IST 2025