Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anandita Rai vs Ram Dhari on 22 February, 2022
CRM-M No.6907 of 2022 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.6907 of 2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision.22.02.2022
2. CRM-M Nos.7485, 7486, 7489, 7494, 7496, 7499, 7501, 7502, 7504,
7506 & 7508 of 2022
Anandita Rai @ Anita Rai ...Petitioner
Vs
Ram Dhari Mal ...Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Present: Mr. Rajiv Dhawan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
-.-
JAISHREE THAKUR J. (ORAL)
1. By this common order, this Court proposes to dispose of the
aforesaid 12 Crl. Misc. Petitions filed seeking quashing of the complaint cases
filed against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, which are pending before JMIC, Jind as well as to quash order dated
29.10.2021 passed by JMIC, Jind where bail of the petitioner has been
cancelled and her bail/surety bonds have been forfeited.
2. Mr. Rajiv Dhawan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
herein would inter alia contend that these 12 complaint cases were filed
against a company namely M/s Bush Foods Overseas Pvt. Ltd. on account of
dishonour of cheques issued on account of purchase of paddy. He would
further contend that the criminal complaint cases filed against the petitioner,
who has been reflected as General Manager, would not be sustainable as she
has been summoned as an accused on account of vicarious liability sought to
be fastened upon her. It is further submitted that respondent No.1-Company is
not functional at the moment and the Managing Director, who was responsible,
has left the shores of India. These complaint cases have been filed as far back
1 of 3
as 2016 and as on date, the trial is not proceeding. He would also rely upon the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in National Small
Industries Corp. Ltd. Vs. Harmeet Singh Paintal and others passed in
Criminal Appeal No.320-336 of 2010 decided on 15.02.2010 to argue that
vicarious liability cannot be fastened upon the petitioner herein.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused
the paper book. This Court is not inclined to quash the complaints filed,
keeping in view the fact that there is a specific averment in the complaints
itself regarding role of the petitioner. It would be a matter of evidence and trial
whether the petitioner herein was actually responsible for the affairs of the
company as stated therein.
4. Faced with this, counsel appearing for the petitioner does not
press for quashing of the complaint but prays for setting aside the impugned
order dated 29.10.2021 by which the bail bonds stand cancelled and makes a
prayer for exemption from personal appearance of the petitioner. It is
submitted that the petitioner is now residing in Kolkata and suffering from
various medical issues and is unable to put in appearance on each and every
date of hearing. It was on this account that she was unable to put in an
appearance on the date fixed and the application for exemption from personal
appearance was dismissed by the impugned order. It is also argued that service
as on date has not been effected upon accused/respondents No.1 and 2 and
therefore, it is a matter of great harassment to the petitioner to put in
appearance on each and every date.
5. As far as request of the counsel for the petitioner for exemption
from personal appearance is concerned, there is merit in the same. The
complaints have been filed as far back as 2016, and as on date the complainant
has not been able to secure the presence of accused No.1 and 2. The petitioner
2 of 3
has been served and was appearing, however, her application for exemption
from personal appearance was rejected on 29.10.2021 on account of non filing
of affidavit with the application or any medical record in support of thereof.
There is a medical report attached with this petition, that reflects that the
petitioner is suffering from Severe Menorrhagia and has been advised
Hysterectomy. Considering the fact that the petitioner has medical issues and
has been advised surgery, apart from the fact that the presence of other co
accused has not been secured, it would be harassment in case the petitioner is
directed to be present on each date from Kolkatta.
6. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner
herein is permitted to put in appearance through her counsel with an
undertaking that she will be present on such dates as mandated by the trial
court. With the aforesaid observations, all these petitions are disposed of in
limine. However, any observations made herein above are only for the purpose
of allowing the petitioner to put in appearance through her counsel and ought
not to be construed as an opinion on merits of the case. It would be a matter of
trial as to whether the petitioner was in charge of the affairs of the company.
(JAISHREE THAKUR)
February 22, 2022 JUDGE
Pankaj*
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
