Criminal Petition No. 7575 of 2018 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1808 CRL.P No. 7575 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7575 OF 2018 BETWEEN: LALITHA, W/O. MUNIMARAPPA CHARAN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, DIRECTOR, GRID ELECTRIC INFRA (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NO. 38, 8TH MAIN ESCORTS COLONY, ATTUR LAYOUT, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE - 560 064. (BY SRI. VIJAYKUMAR PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: B. MAHAVEER, S/O. LATE BHAVARI LAL, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, MACO PLAST, NO.84/3, SAIT PALAYAM, HENNUR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 084. Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka …RESPONDENT
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. GANESH R., ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.04.2018, TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 N.I. ACT, PASSED BY THE XV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.8697/2018. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1808 CRL.P No. 7575 of 2018 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner being accused No.3 is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against her, pending in CC No.8697 of 2018 on the file of the learned XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the NI Act'). 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the respondent filed the private complaint in PCR No.1360 of 2018 against accused Nos.1 to 3 alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. It is the contention of the complainant that accused No.1 is the Company and accused No.2 is one of the Directors and he is the authorised signatory to accused No.1. Accused No.3 i.e., the petitioner herein is also one of the Directors to accused No.1. It is stated that the complainant is the proprietor of Maco Plast Pipe Industries, who is manufacturing, distributing and selling PVC electrical pipes and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1808 CRL.P No. 7575 of 2018 fittings. Accused No.2 being the authorised signatory of accused No.1 approached the complainant for purchase of the electrical fittings as per purchase order dated 15.04.2016. Accordingly, the complainant supplied the materials amounting to Rs.3,20,852/- under the invoice. The accused agreed to make payment immediately after delivery of the materials. Accused No.2 being the authorised signatory issued the cheque bearing 531640 for Rs.3,03,064/- dated 04.12.2017. When the cheque was presented for encashment, the same was dishonored as there was insufficient funds in the account. Even though legal notice was served on the accused, the cheque amount is not paid and thereby the accused has committed the offence jointly and severally. Accordingly, the complainant requested the Trial Court to take cognizance of the offence and to initiate legal action. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and registered CC No.8697 of 2018. The petitioner being accused No.3 is before this Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated by him. 3. Heard Sri. Vijaykumar Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent has remained absent and has not addressed his arguments inspite - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1808 CRL.P No. 7575 of 2018 of giving sufficient opportunity. Hence, his argument is taken as nil. Perused the materials on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.3 only on the ground that she is one of the Directors of accused No.1 - Company. The averments made in the complaint discloses that it was accused No.2 who is the authorised signatory and issued the cheque in question. The legal notice was addressed to accused No.2 and he has not replied to the same, nor did he repaid the cheque amount. There is absolutely no allegations against the present petitioner stating that she is responsible for the affairs of the Company or that she was in-charge of day-to-day affairs of the Company. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is not liable to be prosecuted. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against her. 5. In view of the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on going through the materials placed on record, the point that would arise for my consideration is: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1808 CRL.P No. 7575 of 2018 “Whether the Petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against her?" My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following: R E A S O N S 6. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.3 in PCR.No.1360/2018 alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Accused No.1 is a Company and accused No.2 is one of the Directors who represents accused No.1 and he is the authorised signatory to the cheque in question issued in favour of the complainant. The averments made in the complaint by the complainant / respondent revolves around the Company being accused No.1 and accused No.2 being the authorized signatory who issued the cheque, which was later dishonored. It is stated that the legal notice was served on the accused. Inspite of that, the cheque amount is not repaid. Therefore, it is the contention of the complainant that the offence under Section 138 of NI Act is made out. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1808 CRL.P No. 7575 of 2018 7. As per Section 141 of NI Act, when the offence is committed by a company, every person who, at the time of offence, was in charge of, and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the company, is deemed to have committed the offence along with the company. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision in National Small Industries Corporation Limited v. Harmeet Singh Paintal and Another1, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court by referring to its earlier decision in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (1) v. Neeta Bhalla and Another2 held that there must be specific averments in the complaint in pursuance of Section 141 of NI Act to contend that the person accused was in charge of and was responsible for the conduct of business of the company. It is highlighted by the Hon'ble Apex Court that such averment is an essential requirement of Section 141 of NI Act and has to be made in the complaint. It is also stated that without such averment being made in the complaint, the requirements of Section 141 of NI Act cannot be said to be satisfied.
Decision
ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1808 CRL.P No. 7575 of 2018 (ii) The order dated 07.04.2018 passed in C.C.No.8697/2018 on the file of the learned XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act, is hereby quashed against the petitioner. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BGN/MCR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24 CT: BHK