The Delhi HC in, SUMIT BHASIN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR., reiterated the position in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Yogendra Singh Jadon & Anr, to hold that the High Court can’t exercise its power u/s 482 Cr.P.C where allegations are required to be proved in law.
Facts
The Petition approached the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to quash the criminal complaint filed against him. The petitioner issued a cheque in favour of the respondent which was dishonoured. The respondent filed a criminal complaint against him.
Contention of Petitioner
It was contended that though he was the director of the company which entered into transaction with respondent but he can't be held vicariously liable as he did not sign the cheque. There are no allegations against the petitioner as to what role he played in the issuance of cheque and there is no clear averment that he was in charge or responsible for the day to day affairs of the company.
Contention of Respondent
It was argued that the petitioner was the full time director of the company and hence he should be held liable. The petitioner was the whole time director drawing a salary as a Director since 2005 as per the ROC company master data and his e-mail is the e-mail for the Company and is part and parcel of the transaction at each step.
Court’s Observation
The court stated that whenever a cheque dishonoured the petitioners with malafide intentions and to prolong the litigation raise false and frivolous pleas approach the High Court who then have to examine their defence first and exonerate them. By the virtue of Section 118 and 139 of NI Act, the onus is on the accused to prove his defence as to how he did not dishonour the cheque. The court while highlighting about the jurisdiction under S. 482 stated that the defence raised the petitioners in the petition requires evidence, which cannot be appreciated, evaluated or adjudged in the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same can only be proved in the Court of law. The Court while finding no flaw in the proceedings before the trial court stated, “In the instant case, all these issues mentioned hereinabove involves disputed question of facts and law and cannot be decided unless and until the parties go to trial and lead their respective evidence.”
Case Details
CRL. M.C. 296/2021 & Crl.M.A. 1529/2021
Coram- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
Share this Document :
Picture Source :
