TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 828
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plicant no.7 from this application. 2. Mr. Ostwal the learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant strongly objected for adjournment. Needless to say that on 12.02.2020, this Court passed an order and issued notice to the non-applicant and granted stay to the proceeding SCC No. 10855/2018. The said complaint pertains to offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act for dishonour of three different cheques amounting to Rupees One Crore and Fifty Lakhs as described in para 9 of the complaint. 3. By the present application under Section 482 of the Cr.PC. The applicants who are original accused nos.1 to 9 have challenged the order dated 31.01.2019, whereby the learned trial Court issued process as against the present applicants for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the N.I. Act. Though, advocate Mr. Sakolkar made a statement that he has instructions to appear on behalf of the applicant nos. 2 to 4 and advocate Mrs. Rashmi Kulkarni made a statement that she has instructions to appear on behalf of applicant no.7. However, nothing has been justified when present application was filed by all the accused persons as to how at this s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and 344 of 2020, challenging the order of issuance of process. The applicants/ accused further pray for quashment of complaints bearing Nos. SCC 9286 of 2018, SCC 10855 of 2018 and SCC 10854 of 2018. 8. On 12.02.2020, this Court passed order and issued notice to the respondents/complainant and further proceedings bearing SCC 9286 of 2018, SCC 10855 of 2018 and SCC 10854 of 2018 are stayed. Thereafter, on 12.11.2025, none appeared on behalf of the applicants, therefore, the matter was kept for passing of the order of dismissal on 19.11.2025. On 19.11.2025, this Court passed following order : "1. Learned advocate Shri Deshmukh appearing for the applicants states that since the main arguing counsel Shri Arun Agrawal has passed away, he is required to take instructions from the applicant. 2. Since the arguing counsel has expired, it would be appropriate to issue notice to the applicants returnable on 17.12.2025. 3. Interim relief granted vide order dated 12.02.2020 to continue till then". 9. As per the service report, the applicant Nos. 1) CLC Industries Limited, 5) Mr. Deepak Diwan, 6) Mr. Kapoor Chand Garg and 8) Ms. Shivani Gupta, refuse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....applications, challenging orders dated 31.01.2019, 12.02.2019 and 08.03.2019, respectively therein, whereby, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad issued process u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 6. After hearing the learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties, in these 3 separate applications following legal questions are arises for my consideration as under: i. Whether the applications u/s 482 of Cri. P. C., challenging the order of issuance of process as well as seeking quashment of the criminal proceeding are maintainable through the power of attorney? ii. Whether these proceedings are maintainable at the behest of the applicants /original accused, the Directors and Non-Executive Directors of the main accused No. 1/Company when the applications u/s 482 of Cri.P C., are dismissed against the accused No.1? 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respective applicants canvassed that, the applicant No. 1 / original accused no. 1 is a Company incorporated under the provisions Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of "Cotton Yarn/Synthetic Blended Yarns". The Applicants 2 to 4 are the Directors of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i, MANU/PHYSICAL HEARING/1159/2010 : 2010 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 586 = 2010 Supreme (P&H) 1597, it is held that, it is only the accused person against whom a criminal case has been registered or a criminal complaint has been filed, who can file a petition under Section 482 of Cri. P. C. in the High Court for quashing the complaint, the summoning order, and the subsequent proceedings, no third person can fight a proxy war on his behalf under the garb of public interest litigant. The aggrieved party, which is affected by an order is required to seek redress of its grievance by questioning the legal validity or correctness of the same except if the aggrieved party is suffering from some disability i.e. unless such party is a minor, an insane person, or is suffering from any other disability, which in law, is recognized as sufficient to permit any other person i.e. next friend to move the Court on his behalf. On behalf of minor, or insane person, a guardian or a next friend initiates proceedings so as to challenge the legality and validity of the order passed against him to seek redressal of the grievance as under the law. Such a person having disability, cannot be said as competent to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plicants 2 to 4 & 9 are the Directors of the Applicant no. 1/ original accused no. 1 CLC Industries Limited. These applicants/accused are not having control and responsible for day to day affairs of the Applicant No. 1 Company. So also, the applicants received notice dated 16.04.2018 from the State Bank of India u/s 13(4) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act read with Rule 4(v) of the Rules and as per said notice. The SBI have attached movable and immovable properties of Bhadresh Trading Corporation Limited with which the Memorandum of Understanding dated 20.12.2017 was executed. Therefore, it was legal compulsion that the applicant no. 1 Company issued a cheque No. 001300 dated 31.05.2018 in sum of Rs. 25 lakhs drawn of R.B.I. Hauzkhas Branch, New Delhi in favour of it's Banker, which resulted issuance of directions to stop payment against the cheque issued in favour of the Non-applicant/Complainant. So also, after service of mandatory notice, the applicants issued reply dated 17.10.2018 and brought to the notice of Non-applicant/original Complainant about legal impediment. Therefore, though the application u/s 482 of Cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reply issued to the statutory notice stating the said defense. 17. Section 34 of the Companies Act, provides that, where an offence under this act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time of 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 such person liable to any punishment provided in this Act, if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. 18. It is thus seen that, the vicarious liability of a person for being prosecuted for an offence committed under the Act by a Company arises, if at the material time he was in charge and was also responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. Therefore, the company i.e. applicant no. 1 CLC Industry Ltd., is considered the primary offender for the offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act and as such the present application u/....