The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing of Criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner. The Court observed that for a person to be subjected to criminal proceedings, specific averments have to be in a complaint.
Brief Facts:
The above complaints have been filed by respondent no.1 alleging that accused no.1 used to purchase the textile products from respondent no.1 herein and in consideration of the same had issued cheques to respondent no.1. At the time of giving the said cheques, the accused had given the confidence and assurance to the complainant that is, respondent no.1 herein, that upon deposit of the said cheques, in its accounts, the payment thereagainst shall be received. The cheques, however, on presentation, were returned dishonoured due to ‘insufficient funds’ on 29.08.2014. Respondent no.1 issued a notice dated 17.09.2014 to the accused but received no response thereto. Hence, the complaint was filed.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the only averment against the Petitioner in the complaint was that he was the agent. He contended that there was no further averment of the petitioner having issued the cheque or having any say in the working of the accused no.1 firm. He argued that therefore, the petitioner could not have been summoned based on the averments made in the complaints.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted the petitioner was an agent of accused no.1, therefore, he has been rightly arrayed as an accused in the complaint.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that barring the assertion that the petitioner had acted as an agent of accused no.1, there is no other assertion that the petitioner, in any manner, was in charge of the firm of accused no.1 or had any say in its working.
The Court observed that for a person to be subjected to criminal proceedings, specific averments have to be in a complaint. It is also imperative to establish that a person who is seeking to be made criminally liable should, at the time of the commission of the offence, be in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company, to initiate proceedings under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The Decision of the Court:
The Delhi High Court, dismissing the petition, held that the offence under Section 138 of the Act is not made out against the petitioner.
Case Title: Pravin Jain v Alps Industries Limited
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Navin Chawla
Case No.: CRL.M.C. 3471/2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Shankar Divate
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Shishir Singh
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
