JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J.

1. This common order shall dispose of all the abovementioned petitions as they arise from similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CRM-M-44594-2023.

2. The present petition has been preferred under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter 'Cr.P.C.') seeking quashing of complaint bearing No.NACT No. 59849 of 2022 dated 20.10.2022, titled as "M/s. Steel Kart vs M/s. Bird Machines Private Limited", under Sections 138, 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter 'NI Act') as well as summoning order dated 11.11.2022(Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad.

3. Briefly, the facts, as alleged, are that the respondent-complainant is in the business of sale and purchase of iron and steel goods with accused company i.e. M/s Bird Machine Pvt. Ltd. The accused, including the petitioners, being the directors of the said company came to the office of the respondent for quality and quantity inspection before taking delivery of the ordered goods. The goods were delivered by the complainant on assurance of payment by the accused. In order to discharge their liability, four cheques were issued by the accused-company under the signatures of accused- Arvinder Pal Singh, the details of which are given below:

However, all the abovementioned cheques were dishonoured on presentation. A legal notice was served qua each of the aforementioned cheques, however, the requisite payment was not made in the stipulated time and accordingly, complaints under the NI Act were instituted.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the petitioners have only been arraigned as accused in the present case because they are Directors of the accused-company. However, the petitioners were never associated with the day to day affairs of the company. In fact, they were not drawing any salary or monetary benefit from the company either. Further still, the cheque(s) have been issued under the signature of the authorised signatory-Arvinder Pal Singh, Managing Director. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Shewakramani and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another 2024 INSC 1013, Pooja Ravinder Devdasani vs. State of Maharashtra (2015) 3 SCC(Civil) 384 and Veenu Rana vs. Surindra Milk Chilling Centre Pvt. Ltd. 2024(1) R.C.R. (criminal) 516.

5. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioners visited the premises of the respondent in order to check the quality and quantity of the goods ordered by them and subsequently, accepted delivery. As such they were involved in the day to day affairs of the company, being its Directors. Therefore, no interference by this Court is warranted.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it appears that the petitioners are the Directors of the accused-company and the cheque(s) was issued under the signature of the Managing Director- Arvinder Pal Singh. The doctrine of vicarious liability is a civil concept and its applicability in criminal cases is an exception rather than the rule. The doctrine of vicarious liability originates from the maxim Qui Facit per Alium Facit per, which means any act done by the servant in the course of his employment is considered to be done by the master and in principle, the master is also liable for the said act. In the Indian context, a person can be held liable for the actions of another, with the aid of provisions contained in Section 149 and 34 of the IPC. As such, in criminal law, in certain cases, a person may be held liable as the principal offen