Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harpreet Singh Brar, J.
S. Rajgopal – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M No. 34999 of 2019
Decided On : 02-04-2024
Vicarious Liability - Criminal Offence - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Indian Penal Code - Section 279, 337, 304-A - Summary: The court adjudicated whether the petitioners, as Directors of L&T, can be held vicariously liable for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The court held that the petitioners cannot be implicated in the absence of specific allegations indicating their role in the crime. It emphasized that there is no provision in the IPC for fastening vicarious liability upon the Directors of the Company for offences listed in it. The summoning order was passed without recording prima facie satisfaction of the involvement of the petitioners, and thus, the petitions were allowed, and the impugned chargesheet and summoning order were quashed.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a fatal accident where the petitioners, as Directors of L&T, were implicated in a Supplementary Chargesheet under Sections 279, 337, 304-A of the IPC. The court considered whether the petitioners could be held vicariously liable for the offence under Section 304-A of the IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners cannot be implicated in the absence of specific allegations indicating their role in the crime. It emphasized that there is no provision in the IPC for fastening vicarious liability upon the Directors of the Company for offences listed in it. The summoning order was passed without recording prima facie satisfaction of the involvement of the petitioners.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners, as Directors of L&T, could be held vicariously liable for the offence under Section 304-A of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners cannot be implicated in the absence of specific allegations indicating their role in the crime. It emphasized that there is no provision in the IPC for fastening vicarious liability upon the Directors of the Company for offences listed in it. The summoning order was passed without recording prima facie satisfaction of the involvement of the petitioners.
Final Decision: The petitions were allowed, and the impugned chargesheet and summoning order were quashed.
Judgment
Mr. Harpreet Singh Brar, J.
This common judgment shall dispose of all the captioned petitions as they arise out of identical factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CRM-M-35070-2019, with the consent of parties.
2. The present petition is preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking quashing of Supplementary Chargesheet dated 25.04.2019 (Annexure P-3) as well as summoning order dated 01.05.2019 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad (hereinafter ‘JMIC’) in FIR No. 81 dated 26.02.2014 registered under Sections 279, 337, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter ‘IPC’) at Police Station Sector 7, Faridabad.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3. On 10.02.2014, at about 10:30 PM, respondent no. 3-complainant was travelling with her husband and 3 years old son namely Pavitr via Mathura Road on a two wheeler make Honda Aviator bearing no. HR-51-AL-2657. The vehicle rode over a pothole causing all three of them to fall down. Thereafter, an unidentified four wheeler, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and struck the complainant’s son while running over her legs. The driver of the said vehicle fled from the scene. The complainant and her son were brought to the hospital, where her son succumbed to his injuries.
4. Initially, a cancellation report dated 04.06.2014 was filed by the police since neither the erring driver nor the four wheeler could be traced. Dissatisfied by the investigation, the complainant and her husband- Manoj Wadhwa made a representation to the National Human Rights Commission (hereinafter ‘NHRC’). In pursuance of the same, the NHRC vide order dated 01.01.2016 directed the matter to be handed over to Crime Branch-CID for further in-depth and comprehensive investigation. The investigation was conducted by DSP, Crime Branch, Gurgaon and since the offending vehicle could not be traced, another Untraced Report dated 08.11.2017(Annexure P- 11) was filed wherein it was also stated that the depth and width of the pothole could not be sufficiently determined. Since three years had already lapsed, the investigating agency concluded that it cannot be conclusively established whether the alleged accident occurred due to the poor condition of the road. Meanwhile, in 2016, Manoj Wadhwa, husband of the complainant, filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 19076 of 2016 titled “Manoj Kumar Wadhwa and another v. Union of India” alleging negligence by National Highway Authority of India (hereinafter ‘NHAI’) in the maintenance and upkeep of the concerned road, which was the site of the accident, and claimed compensation. This Court, vide order dated 15.09.2016, directed the NHAI to decide the representation of the complainant within a period of three months. In compliance of the same, the complainant and her husband made a representation to the Chief General Manager, NHAI seeking compensation and reimbursement of medical expenses. Since the NHAI failed to decide the said representation in time, a contempt petition bearing COCP No.1883 of 2017 in CWP No. 19076 of 2016 was filed wherein this Court directed the Commissioner of Police, Faridabad to constitute an SIT and file a detailed affidavit. Consequently, an SIT comprising of Inspector (Additional SHO), Police Station Sector 7, Fariadabad and SI, Incharge, Police Post Sector 11, Faridabad, headed by ACP, Ballabgarh was constituted on 01.08.2018. Citing the Site Plan dated 26.02.2014, prepared by the then IO, the SIT determined that there were pits on the road which resulted in the death of the complainant’s minor son.
5. The project for road widening in the Delhi-Agra section of NH-2, which was also the site of the accident, was awarded to M/s DA Toll Road Pvt. Ltd., Concessionaire, Special Purpose Vehicle Company, promoted and incorporated by M/s Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. (hereinafter ‘Reliance’) by NHAI. Reliance had further sub-contracted t
AI
The court emphasized that there is no provision in the IPC for fastening vicarious liability upon the Directors of the Company for offences listed in it, and the summoning order must satisfy the obje....
Merely holding the designation of director does not establish liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act; specific allegations of involvement and responsibility in the company's affairs at the ti....
Vicarious liability does not apply to company directors unless statute provides for it; established there was no direct involvement in negligence by the applicants.
Vicarious liability in criminal law cannot be imposed without explicit statutory provisions, and allegations must demonstrate direct involvement and intent of the accused.
Independent directors cannot be held criminally liable under Section 138 of the NI Act without specific allegations demonstrating their responsibility for the company's conduct, as mere designation i....
Vicarious liability cannot be imposed on company Directors without specific statutory provisions; mere designation does not imply culpability without evidence of involvement.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific averments and unimpeachable evidence to establish vicarious liability of directors in cases of cheque bounce under Sec....
Vicarious liability cannot be imposed on a company's directors under IPC unless there is specific statutory provision; direct involvement must be established.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
