TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 868
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'CrPC') seeking quashing of Criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner herein in Criminal Complaint no .6831/2017 titled ALPS Industries Ltd. v. Laycana & Ors. and Criminal Complaint no. 6830/2017 titled ALPS Industries Ltd. v. Laycana & Ors. pending adjudication before the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act)-2, Rouse Avenue Court Complex, New Delhi District, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'MM'). 3. The above complaints have been filed by the respondent no. 1 alleging that M/s Laycana (accused no. 1) is a proprietary firm of the accused no. 2 and 3 that is Sh. Rupal Shah and Mr. K. Mahendra and Company. 4. The petitioner herei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioner in the complaint is that he was the agent. He submits that there is no further averment of the petitioner having issued the cheque or having any say in the working of the accused no. 1 firm. He submits that therefore, the petitioner could not have been summoned on the basis of the averments made in the complaints. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further places reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Siby Thomas v. Somany Ceramics Ltd., (2024) 1 SCC 348. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner was an agent of accused no. 1, therefore, he has been rightly arrayed as an accused in the complaint. He further submits that, in case, this Court comes to the concl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Mani & Mohan Dairy v. Snehalatha Elangovan, (2023) 10 SCC 685] and in view of sub-section (1) of Section 141 of the NI Act it cannot be said that in a complaint filed under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act to constitute basic averment it is not required to aver that the accused concerned is a person who was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time when the offence was committed. In para 53 of S.P. Mani case [S.P. Mani & Mohan Dairy v. Snehalatha Elangovan, (2023) 10 SCC 685] it was held thus : (SCC p. 715) "53. In the case on hand, we find clear and specific averments not only in the complaint but also in the statutory notice issued to the respondent."....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the company or the person responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. A bare perusal of Section 141(1) of the NI Act, would reveal that only that 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 alone shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished." 15. As noted above, the petitioner herein is averred to only be an agent of the accused no. 1 firm. There is not even an assertion in the complaint that the petitioner was in any manner in charge of or was responsible to the accused no. 2 for the conduct of its business. 16. Applyin....