SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(P&H) 1201

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.
R.K.Jain
Versus
State Of Haryana
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 51684 of 2001,
Decided On : NOVEMBER 23, 2005

Specific allegations of individual involvement are necessary for proceedings against an individual to proceed.

Headnote:

Dismissal - Individual Liability - Quashing of Proceedings

Fact of the Case:

The petition was dismissed as not pressed for the company petitioner, and it was pointed out that the individual petitioner was not responsible for the company's affairs and there was no specific allegation of individual involvement.

Finding of the Court:

The court quashed the proceedings against the individual petitioner at the current stage, with the provision that if there is any material during evidence against the individual petitioner, the trial court can proceed in accordance with the law.

Issues: Individual liability, specific allegation of involvement

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla, emphasizing the need for specific allegations of individual involvement for proceedings to proceed against an individual.

Final Decision: The petition was disposed of, and the proceedings against the individual petitioner were quashed at the current stage, with the provision for further proceedings if material against the individual petitioner arises during evidence.

Judgment

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.

1. This petition is dismissed as not pressed qua petitioner No. 2 which is a company. It is pointed out that petitioner No. 1 is a Director, but he is not responsible for or incharge of the affairs of the company It is also pointed out that in the complaint, there is no specific allegation of individual involvement of petitioner No. 1 and in absence thereof, proceedings against petitioner No. 1 cannot proceed. Reliance is placed on a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla and another, 2005(4) RCR(Criminal) 141.

2. Accordingly, proceedings against petitioner No. 1 will stand quashed at this stage making it clear that if there is any material during evidence against petitioner No. 1, the trial Court will be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. The petition is disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top