TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the applicant, an ex-Director, could be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the basis of his resignation and the disputed question whether he was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business at the relevant time.
Analysis: The complaint contained averments that the applicant was one of the Directors actively managing the company and was jointly responsible for its affairs when the cheques were issued. The documents relied upon by the applicant and the complainant regarding resignation and Form No. 32 were not free from ambiguity, and the date from which the applicant ceased to be associated with the company was itself in dispute. In a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the High Court cannot decide contested factual issues or assess the defence at the threshold. The question whether the cheques were issued while the applicant remained responsible for the company's business required evidence and trial.
Conclusion: The complaint could not be quashed at the threshold. The application was rejected, and the issue was decided against the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings for quashing, where the complaint contains the requisite averments for vicarious liability and the accused's defence turns on disputed facts, the High Court should not interfere under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
TaxTMI 
