High Court Quashes Summoning Order: Former CEO Not Liable for Cheque Issue Due to Lack of Vicarious Liability Evidence.

The HC quashed the summoning order dated 28.11.2016, the complaint in CC No. 6573/2017 under Sections 138/141/142 of the NIA, and all subsequent proceedings, including the order dated 04.12.2019. The petitioner, having resigned as CEO before the cheque issuance, was not liable due to the absence of specific allegations establishing vicarious liability.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the summoning order dated 28.11.2016.
2. Quashing of the complaint bearing CC No. 6573/2017 under Sections 138/141/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NIA).
3. Quashing of all further proceedings emanating from the complaint, including the order dated 04.12.2019 by the Special Judge NDPS in Criminal Revision CR No. 114/2019.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of the Summoning Order Dated 28.11.2016:
The petitioner sought the quashing of the summoning order issued by the Trial Court. The petitioner argued that she was not responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time, as she had resigned from her position as CEO on 15.06.2016, prior to the issuance of the cheque on 28.10.2016. The Court found merit in this contention, noting that Form No. DIR-11 evidenced her resignation and that she could not be held liable for the alleged offence committed after her resignation.

2. Quashing of the Complaint Bearing CC No. 6573/2017 Under Sections 138/141/142 of the NIA:
The petitioner contended that the complaint lacked specific and necessary averments regarding her role in the alleged offence. The Court referred to several judgments, including S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla & Ors. and National Small Industries Corp. Ltd. v. Harmeet Singh Paintal, which emphasized the necessity of specific allegations against the accused to establish vicarious liability under Section 141 of the NIA. The Court observed that the complaint did not mention the petitioner's involvement in the transaction or her responsibility for the conduct of the business at the relevant time. The absence of such averments was deemed fatal to the complainant's case.

3. Quashing of All Further Proceedings Emanating from the Complaint, Including the Order Dated 04.12.2019 by the Special Judge NDPS in Criminal Revision CR No. 114/2019:
The Court noted that the respondent had been duly served but chose not to contest the petition. Following precedents such as Lafarge Aggregates & Concrete India P. Ltd. vs. Sukarsh Azad & Ors., the Court proceeded ex-parte and examined the merits of the petition. The Court found that the petitioner could not be held liable for the alleged offence as she had resigned before the issuance of the cheque and there were no specific allegations against her in the complaint. Consequently, the summoning order, the complaint, and all further proceedings, including the order dated 04.12.2019, were quashed.

Conclusion:
The petition was allowed, and the summoning order dated 28.11.2016, the complaint bearing CC No. 6573/2017, and all further proceedings emanating therefrom, including the order dated 04.12.2019, were quashed against the petitioner. The Court emphasized the necessity of specific averments in complaints under Sections 138 and 141 of the NIA to establish vicarious liability and held that the petitioner could not be held liable for the alleged offence committed after her resignation.

---