TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging issuance of process and seeking quashment of proceedings are maintainable through a power of attorney holder. (ii) Whether such applications are maintainable at the instance of directors and non-executive directors when the application against the company stands dismissed.
Issue (i): Whether applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging issuance of process and seeking quashment of proceedings are maintainable through a power of attorney holder.
Analysis: The applications were instituted to assail the orders issuing process in complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court held that, in the absence of any pleaded legal disability of the accused, a criminal challenge to the legality of the process and complaint must be pursued by the accused themselves and not through a power of attorney holder. Reliance was placed on the principle that a proxy challenge in criminal proceedings is impermissible unless law recognises a specific disability permitting a next friend or guardian to act.
Conclusion: The challenge through a power of attorney holder was held not maintainable and the issue was answered against the applicants.
Issue (ii): Whether such applications are maintainable at the instance of directors and non-executive directors when the application against the company stands dismissed.
Analysis: The Court treated the company as the primary offender in the prosecution arising from dishonour of cheques and held that the directors' challenge could not survive independently once the application against the company had already been dismissed. The Court further noted that criminal liability in such proceedings is tied to the persons shown to be in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business, and the applicants had not established a sufficient basis to maintain quashing proceedings by directors alone.
Conclusion: The applications by the directors and non-executive directors were held not maintainable in the absence of the company, and the issue was answered against the applicants.
Final Conclusion: The criminal applications were not tenable and were dismissed, with the trial directed to be expedited.
Ratio Decidendi: A criminal petition for quashing process and proceedings must ordinarily be filed by the accused themselves, and directors cannot independently maintain such a challenge where the company, being the primary offender, is no longer before the Court.
TaxTMI 
