TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 2039
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or short, 'the Act') filed by the respondent. Petitioner-Lata Agrawal has been arrayed as accused no. 3; whereas petitioner-Rajiv Garg as accused no.4 in the complaint under Section 138 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner-Lata Agarwal is partner in the accused no.1-M/s Gayatri Infotel (for short, the Firm). However, she is a house wife. At no point of time she was 'incharge' of the business affairs of the firm. She has not signed the cheque. Petitioner-Rajiv Garg was employed in a private company which had no concern or involvement in the business affairs of accused no.1. Rajiv Garg had briefly assisted in the business of accused no.1 from January, 2013 to August, 2014. He was not involved in the bu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rther submitted that disputed facts cannot be looked into at this nascent stage and are subject matter of trial. Complaint case cannot be quashed against the petitioners, in view of the specific averments made in the complaint against them. He has placed reliance on Standard Chartered Bank vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. MANU/SC/0409/2016, Rallis India Limited vs. Poduru Vidya Bhushan and Others (2011) 13 SCC 88, K.K. Ahuja vs. V.K. Vora and Another (2009) 10 SCC 48 and Shashi Jindal and Ors. vs. Govt. of NCT and Ors. MANU/DE/3286/2015. I have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material placed on record as also the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties. Section 141 of the Act read....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... For the purposes of this section,- (a) "company" means anybody corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and (b) "director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm." A perusal of aforesaid Section makes it clear that if the person committing the offence under section 138 is a company /firm then every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished besides the company/firm. Obviously, to attract the provisions of Section 141 of the Act averments have to be made in the complaint against such accused that he/she was incharge or responsible for the bu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt that he was in charge of, and was responsible to the company, for the conduct of the business of the company is necessary to bring the case under Section 141(1). No further averment would be necessary in the complaint, though some particulars will be desirable. They can also be made liable under Section 141(2) by making necessary averments relating to consent and connivance or negligence, in the complaint, to bring the matter under that Sub-section. (iv) Other Officers of a company can not be made liable under Sub-section (1) of Section 141. Other officers of a company can be made liable only under Sub-section (2) of Section 141, be averring in the complaint their position and duties in the company and their role in regard to the issue ....