TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court quashes proceedings in complaint case due to lack of specific allegations and improper vicarious liability application.</h1> <h3>Jagadish Singh Versus Santosh Iyer and Ors.</h3> The court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner in complaint case No. C-26935/2011 and related revisions, citing lack of specific allegations ... - Issues Involved:1. Quashing of proceedings u/s 482 of CrPC.2. Allegations of cheating, criminal breach of trust, and conspiracy.3. Delay in filing the complaint.4. Jurisdiction of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.5. Vicarious liability of the petitioner.Summary of Judgment:1. Quashing of Proceedings u/s 482 of CrPC:The petitioner sought quashing of proceedings in complaint case No. C-26935/2011 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Calcutta, u/s 482 of CrPC. The court observed that the continuation of the proceedings would be an abuse of process as the petitioner was not associated with the company during the alleged period (1992-94) and joined as a non-executive Director only in 2005. The allegations did not establish any specific role of the petitioner in the alleged offences.2. Allegations of Cheating, Criminal Breach of Trust, and Conspiracy:The complaint alleged that the company and its directors, including the petitioner, committed offences u/s 418/420/406/120B IPC by misrepresenting and selling plots of land without development. The court noted that the petitioner was not connected with the company during the initial transaction period and that the complaint lacked specific averments of the petitioner's role in the alleged cheating or conspiracy. The court emphasized that the concept of vicarious liability is unknown to criminal law, and mere association with the company at a later date does not establish criminal liability.3. Delay in Filing the Complaint:The court highlighted the inordinate delay of 17 years in filing the complaint, with no explanation provided by the complainant. The alleged incident occurred in 1994, and the complaint was filed in 2011. The court referenced the Supreme Court's stance that significant delays without justification can lead to the dismissal of complaints.4. Jurisdiction of the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta:The petitioner argued that the Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, lacked jurisdiction as the transactions and alleged offences occurred in Hyderabad. The court noted that the complaint did not allege that the brochures or money transactions took place within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta court. It was concluded that the proper jurisdiction would be where the sale deed was executed or the money was received.5. Vicarious Liability of the Petitioner:The court reiterated that vicarious liability does not apply to criminal offences under IPC unless explicitly provided by statute. The petitioner's role as a non-executive Director from 2005 did not make him liable for acts committed by the company or other directors in 1992-94. The court found that the complaint was an attempt to exert undue pressure and harass the petitioner.Conclusion:The court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner in complaint case No. C-26935/2011 and related revisions, stating that the continuation of such proceedings would be an abuse of process. The court emphasized the lack of specific allegations against the petitioner and the improper application of vicarious liability in this case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
