TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 365
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C No. 2055/2019; CC No. 391/2019; CC No. 695/2019; CC No. 2055/2019; CC No. 695/2019; CC No. 1041/2019, all titled Parshant Gupta v. M/s AM Vinyl & Ors. (hereinafter collectively referred to as the 'Impugned Orders') by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Shahadara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court'). 2. As the submissions of the parties are common in all these petitions, they were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The limited challenge of the petitioners to the Impugned Orders is that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the petitioners had resigned from the accused Company, that is, M/s AM Vinyl Pvt. Ltd., on 25.03.2018, while the cheques that had been issued by the Company to the respondent no. 2, that is, the complainant, were handed over to the respondent no. 2 and returned unpaid much later and after the resignation of the petitioners. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the offence was committed by the Company after the resignation of the petitioners, therefore, the petitioners cannot be made liable for the offence under S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ushan Kumar & Another v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Another (2012) 5 SCC 424. b) Exercise of powers by the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. is limited in its scope and can be exercised only where the Court is fully satisfied that the material produced would irrefutably rule out the charge and is of such sterling and impeccable quality that the invocation of powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings is warranted. Reference is placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi & Ors., (1976) 3 SCC 736; HMT Watches Ltd. v. M.A. Abida & Anr. (2015) 11 SCC 776; Rajiv Thapar & Ors. v. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330; and, Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 513. c) For attracting Section 141 of the NI Act, the primary responsibility of the complainant is to make specific averments in the complaint so as to make the accused vicariously liable. Thereafter, the burden is on the Board of Directors or the officers in-charge of the affairs of the Company/partners of a firm to show that they were not liable to be convicted. He/she must make out a case th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reasons "Funds Insufficient" & 19th December, 2018 for the cheque bearing No. 353704 for the reasons "Account Closed" which was intimated to the Accused by the Complainant." 9. The petitioners herein have been arrayed as the accused nos. 2 and 3 in the complaints filed by the respondent no. 2. A reading of the above averments in the complaint(s) would show that specific allegations have been made against the petitioner(s) herein of them not only being in charge of the affairs of the Company but also giving assurances to the complainant, based whereon the complainant had entered into the transaction of supplying goods and later, into the Settlement Agreement. 10. Section 141 of the NI Act reads as under: "141. Offences by companies.-(1) If the person committing an offence under section 138 is a company, 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, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any person liab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... accused vicariously liable. For fastening the criminal liability, there is no legal requirement for the complainant to show that the accused partner of the firm was aware about each and every transaction. On the other hand, the first proviso to subsection (1) of Section 141 of the Act clearly lays down that if the accused is able to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that the offence was committed without his/her knowledge or he/she had exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence, he/she will not be liable of punishment. 58.2 The complainant is supposed to know only generally as to who were in charge of the affairs of the company or firm, as the case may be. The other administrative matters would be within the special knowledge of the company or the firm and those who are in charge of it. In such circumstances, the complainant is expected to allege that the persons named in the complaint are in charge of the affairs of the company/firm. It is only the Directors of the company or the partners of the firm, as the case may be, who have the special knowledge about the role they had played in the company or the partners in a firm to show before the court th....