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>Partners in firm vicariously liable in criminal case under Negotiable Instruments Act</h1> <h3>M/s. Well Erectors Of New Engineering Another Versus The State Of Telangana Another</h3> M/s. Well Erectors Of New Engineering Another Versus The State Of Telangana Another - TMI Issues:Petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Vicarious liability of partners in a firm - Invocation of power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).Analysis:1. Quashing of Criminal Proceedings:The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.118 of 2014 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Huzurnagar, Nalgonda District. The main contention was that the petitioners, as Accused Nos.1 & 3, were wrongly implicated in the case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The petitioners argued that they had no involvement in the transactions or issuance of cheques leading to the alleged offence. However, the 2nd respondent contended that the petitioners, being partners in the firm, were collectively responsible and were rightly accused. The Court had to determine whether there were justifiable grounds to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.2. Vicarious Liability of Partners:The 2nd respondent alleged that the petitioners, as partners in the firm, were collectively responsible for the business transactions with the complainant. The complaint stated that the petitioners, along with Accused No.2, obtained supplies from the complainant and issued cheques that were dishonored, leading to the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The petitioners argued that they were not directly involved in these transactions and should not be held vicariously liable. The legal position on vicarious liability under Section 141 of the N.I. Act was discussed, emphasizing that specific averments were required to establish such liability.3. Application of Section 141 of N.I. Act:Section 141 of the N.I. Act deals with offences by companies and the liability of individuals in charge of the company's business conduct. It stipulates that individuals responsible for the company's affairs shall be deemed guilty of the offence unless they prove lack of knowledge or due diligence to prevent the offence. In this case, the petitioners did not dispute their association with the firm but contested their direct involvement in the alleged offence. The Court noted that the power to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is limited and should be sparingly exercised.4. Decision and Dismissal of Petition:After considering the arguments and legal principles, the Court dismissed the criminal petition. It was observed that the petitioners failed to demonstrate circumstances warranting the exercise of the special power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Court emphasized that this power should be cautiously used to prevent abuse of the legal process or secure justice. Consequently, the petition for quashing the proceedings was rejected, and any interim stay granted earlier was vacated.In conclusion, the High Court of Telangana dismissed the petition seeking to quash the criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the petitioners, emphasizing the limited scope of invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the principles of vicarious liability under the law.
TaxTMI 