Back
DELHI HITH COURT
HON'BLE K. S. GUPTA J.
Crl. M.(M) No. 1409 of 2001
Decided on 16.9.2001
SMT. SUNAINA R. MATHANI
versus
NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS.
Vicarious liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act can extend to individuals who were in charge of the company's affairs at the time of the offense, regardless of their resignation as director.
Headnote:
Negotiable Instruments Act - Vicarious Liability - Sections 138, 141, 142 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings and non-bailable warrants issued against her in a complaint case. The petitioner argued that she had resigned as director of the accused company before the alleged offense took place.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's resignation as director does not absolve her from vicarious liability for the offenses alleged, as she was alleged to be in charge of the company's affairs at the time of the offense.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's resignation as director absolved her from vicarious liability for the offenses alleged.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on precedents to hold that the plea of resignation can be considered by the trial court, and the high court should not interfere in proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P.C. The court emphasized that the petitioner's resignation did not warrant quashing of the complaint.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed by the court.
K.S. Gupta J. - In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. the prayers made are as under:
"a) all for the records of the case in complaint case No. 454 of 1998 pending before the Court of Sh. V.K. Goel, Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala house courts, New Delhi and after examining the same this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the said proceedings;
b) quash the non-bailable warrants of arrest issued against the petitioner on 2.11.2000 and 25.1.2001 by the Court of Shri V.K. Goel metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, new Delhi in complaint Case No. 454 of 1998.
c) pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition the further proceedings before the learned trial Court in complaint Case No. 454 1998 be stayed;
d) pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition, the execution of the non-bailable warrants of arrest issued against the petitioner in complaint Case No. 454 of 1998 be stayed;
(e) pass ex parte ad-interim order/orders in terms of prayers (a)(b)(c)(d) above."
2. While issuing notice to respondents for 2nd August, 2001 in Crl. M. 1634/2001 the execution of non-bailable warrants against the petitioner was stayed for four weeks to enable her to appear before the trial Court and apply for by the order dated 23rd April, 2001. Petitioner has since been admitted to regular bail by trial Court. With the stay of execution of non-bailable warrants and petitioner having been admitted to bail, the prayers at (b) and (d) have been rendered anfractuous.
3. In support of prayer at (a) above the submission advanced by Sh. S.S. Gandhi for petitioner as twofold-(I) notice of demand dated 17th February, 1998 on behalf of respondent No. 2 company was issued much after the expiry of stipulated period of 15 days of the receipt of information by the company from bank regarding return of cheque in question as unpaid and (ii) petitioner had resigned as director of respondent No. 3/accused No. 1 company with effect from 1st April, 1997. It was pointed out that on the post-dated cheque in question the date written is 22nd December, 1997. Attention was also drawn to the certified copy of Form No. 32 (at pages 19 & 20 shown to have resigned as director w.e.f. 1st April, 1997.
4. Coming to fist submission copy of complaint filed under sections 138 read with 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short the `Act') and sections 420 read with 120/34 IPC filed by respondent No. 2/complainant is at pages 21 to 31 on the file. It is alleged in this complaint that parties entered into a Hire purchase agreement dated 24th January 1995 and accused persons agreed to repayment structure as per the schedule annexed thereto. Post-dated cheque No. 383210 for Rs. 3,32,500/- dated 22nd December, 1997 drawn on Bank of India, Overseas branch, Mumbai was issued by accused company towards hire purchase installment/delayed payment charges to the complaint. On presentation the cheque was returned unpaid vide memo dated 16th January, 1998 containing the remarks `refer to drawer'. Cheque together with memo was received by the complainant on 10th February, 1998. There after, complainant sent legal notice dated 17th February, 1998 calling upon the accused persons to pay the amount of cheque together with future interest etc. despite service of notice the accused failed to make payment of the demanded amount. To be noted that the notice dated 17th February, 1998 was issued within 15 days of alleged receipt of intimation by the complainant from the bank regarding return of said cheque as unpaid on 10th February, 1998 thus, first submission is repelled being without any merit.
5. Adverting to said second submission, in the decision in Anil Kumar Sawhney v. Gulshan Rai, (1993) 4 SCC 424 it was held by the apex Court that a postdated cheque becomes cheque under the Act on the date which is written on it and six months period is to be reckoned for the purpose of Section 138(a) of the Act from that date. Admittedly 22nd Dec
