TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 508
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a Kumar Singh, Adv., Mr. Sriram P., AOR, Mr. Velmurugan T, Adv., Mr. P Raja, Adv. JUDGMENT PER SANJAY KAROL, J. 1. Leave Granted. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the High Court of Delhi's refusal to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in terms of order dated 7th August 2025 passed and Criminal MC No. 8110/2023 and Criminal M.A. No.30210/2023 to quash the summoning order issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate, in connection with complaint CC NI Act 12597/2021 under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ['NI Act'], as confirmed as a consequence of the dismissal of CR No. 115/2023 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts. 3. The facts of the matter are t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with regard to prosecutions under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is generally well settled. This Court has, on numerous occasions considered the scope of prosecutions thereunder as also under Section 141 of the N.I. Act. (See: N. Vijay Kumar v. Vishwanath Rao N. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 873) The only aspect that we have to consider is whether the appellant is indeed conversant with the day-to-day management of the Company, thereby justifying the issuance of summons to her. Section 141 of N.I. 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 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a firm, means a partner in the firm." 7. A bench of three judges in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla (2005) 8 SCC 89, crystallised the law on the point. The relevant extract is as follows: "19. In view of the above discussion, our answers to the questions posed in the reference are as under: (a) It is necessary to specifically aver in a complaint under Section 141 that at the time the offence was committed, the person accused was in charge of, and responsible for the conduct of business of the company. This averment is an essential requirement of Section 141 and has to be made in a complaint. Without this averment being made in a complaint, the requirements of Section 141 cannot be said to be satisfied. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence which is beyond suspicion or doubt or totally acceptable circumstances which may clearly indicate that the Director could not have been concerned with the issuance of cheques and asking him to stand the trial would be abuse of process of court. Despite the presence of basic averment, it may come to a conclusion that no case is made out against the Director. Take for instance a case of a Director suffering from a terminal illness who was bedridden at the relevant time or a Director who had resigned long before issuance of cheques. In such cases, if the High Court is convinced that prosecuting such a Director is merely an arm-twisting tactics, the High Court may quash the proceedings. It bears repetition to state that to establi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the members of the Board of Directors for decisions taken or conclusions arrived at for matters placed before the Board for consideration and decision. This may be inter alia regarding hiring of personnel at management levels, acquisition or liquidation of assets affecting the overall position of the assets and liabilities of the Company or any other such major directional issue. This, however, does not in any manner mean that each and every member of the Board of Directors is aware of all decisions taken in the everyday transactions that are involved in running a business concern. That apart, there is not even as much as a whisper of direct allegation against the present appellant in the complaint made which, as per the judgment refe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2 SCC 370, which has been followed and affirmed in Prabhu Chawla v. State of Rajasthan (2016) 16 SCC 30. The relevant extract of the former is as follows: "6. Indisputably issuance of summons is not an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397 of the Code. This Court in a large number of decisions beginning from R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 866] to Som Mittal v. Govt. of Karnataka [(2008) 3 SCC 574 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 1 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 910] has laid down the criterion for entertaining an application under Section 482. Only because a revision petition is maintainable, the same by itself, in our considered opinion, would not constitute a bar for entertaining an application under Section 482 of the Cod....