2022 (3) TMI 926 - HC - Indian Laws

Court quashes proceedings against petitioners due to vague allegations, lack of specificity

Smti. Sarita Harish Kanchan, Mr. Mark Alexander Davidson Versus Miss Riya Bawri & 3 Ors., Shri. Rahat Bawri & 3 Ors. Smti. Payal Bansal & 3 Ors.

Smti. Sarita Harish Kanchan, Mr. Mark Alexander Davidson Versus Miss Riya Bawri & 3 Ors., Shri. Rahat Bawri & 3 Ors. Smti. Payal Bansal & 3 Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.2. Vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.3. Validity of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.4. Specificity of allegations in the complaint.5. Applicability of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) provisions.Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:The complaints were made under Section 138 read with Sections 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, concerning the dishonour of cheques drawn by the respondent No. 2 Firm. The petitioners contended that no demand was made from them in writing as required by Section 138, and the notice was addressed only to the respondent No. 2 Firm. The court noted that Section 138(b) mandates notice to the drawer of the cheque only, and in this case, the cheques were drawn by the respondent No. 2 Firm, thus notice was duly issued to the Firm in compliance with the provision.2. Vicarious Liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:The petitioners argued that they were not involved in the partnership firm at the time the cheques were issued and dishonoured. The court emphasized that a clear case must be spelled out in the complaint against the person sought to be made liable. The complaint must specifically aver that at the time the offence was committed, the person accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. The court found that the allegations against the petitioners were vague and did not satisfy the requirements of Section 141, thus no vicarious liability could be fastened upon them.3. Validity of Proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C:The petitioners sought relief under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the summons and proceedings against them. The court noted that Section 482 Cr.P.C can be resorted to prevent abuse of the process of any court and to secure the ends of justice. The court found that the proceedings against the petitioners were an abuse of the process of the court and thus exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings.4. Specificity of Allegations in the Complaint:The court observed that the complaint must contain specific allegations detailing how and in what manner the accused was responsible for the offence. In this case, the court found that the complaint contained only bald and vague averments without specific details about the petitioners' roles in the alleged offence. The court emphasized that summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and requires careful scrutiny of the evidence brought on record.5. Applicability of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) Provisions:The petitioners contended that the allegations under the IPC were not applicable as there was no evidence or specific averments to attract the provisions of Sections 420, 418, 417, 403, 406, and 409 IPC. The court noted that the IPC does not provide for vicarious liability and found that the allegations against the petitioners under the IPC were baseless and not supported by evidence.Conclusion:The court concluded that the petitioners were able to make out a case for the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C as there was an abuse of the process of the court. Consequently, the proceedings in the related complaint cases were quashed and the summons recalled to the extent the petitioners were concerned. The petitions were disposed of with no cost.