Court quashes proceedings against directors under NI Act citing lack of specific allegations

The Court quashed the proceedings under sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioners, who were directors of the company, due to insufficient specific allegations implicating them in the company's conduct. The Court emphasized the necessity of clear and unambiguous allegations to hold directors vicariously liable for company offenses, citing relevant Supreme Court judgments. Consequently, the proceedings against the petitioners and other directors in a similar position were quashed, and the trial against the remaining accused was directed to proceed promptly.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of proceedings u/s 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) against the petitioners.
2. Specific allegations required to hold directors vicariously liable.

Summary:

Issue 1: Quashing of proceedings u/s 138 and 141 of the NI Act against the petitioners

The petitioners, who are directors of the company, sought to quash the proceedings initiated against them for the offence u/s 138 and 141 of the NI Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that the complaint lacked specific allegations regarding their involvement in the conduct of the company's business. It was contended that the complaint only contained vague and general allegations, which are insufficient to hold the petitioners liable.

Issue 2: Specific allegations required to hold directors vicariously liable

The learned Counsel for the respondent argued that the complaint contained sufficient allegations against the petitioners, stating they were in charge and responsible for the conduct of the company's business. The respondent relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla and Anr., which mandates specific averments in the complaint to hold directors liable.

The Court examined the complaint and found that it only contained a general allegation that A3 to A9 were involved and in charge of the day-to-day business of the company. There were no specific allegations regarding the petitioners' roles or their knowledge of the offence. The Court reiterated the principle that a person cannot be held vicariously liable for the offence committed by a company in the absence of specific and definite allegations.

The Court referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including Saroj Kumar Poddar v. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) and N.K. Wahi v. Shekhar Singh and Ors., which emphasized the need for clear and unambiguous allegations to hold directors liable. The Court concluded that the complaint did not meet the requirements to implicate the petitioners and other similarly placed directors.

Conclusion:

The Court quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 3022 of 2000 against the petitioners and other directors, A3, A9, and A10, who were similarly placed. The Criminal Original Petitions were allowed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. The Court directed the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, to expedite the trial against the remaining accused within five months.

---