Back
ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL
Jitendra Mangala – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Bhuvnesh Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sushil Kr. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and Sri Rajeev Kr. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The instant application has been filed seeking quashing of entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 14 of 2018 (Smt. Manju Sharma vs. Jitendra Mangala), u/s 138 N.I. Act, P.S. Tajganj, District Agra, pending before the Additional Court No. 1, Agra as well as summoning order dated 1.9.2018.
3. The factual matrix giving rise to the present case are that the complaint was filed by opposite party No. 2 against the applicant u/s 138 N.I. Act. In the aforesaid complaint, it was mentioned that cheque was issued by M/s Prerana Construction Pvt. Ltd., but only the present applicant who is the proprietor of the company M/s Prerana Construction Pvt. Ltd. was impleaded as accused. The court below after perusal of the record, summoned the present applicant by summoning order dated 1.9.2018 and by way of present application, the proceeding of aforesaid complaint case is under challenge.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is undisputed that the cheque in
A complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is not maintainable if the company that issued the cheque is not impleaded as an accused, as vicarious liability of the proprietor arises only when the c....
Prosecution under Section 138 N.I. Act necessitates the company as the primary accused, without which proceedings against individuals related to the company are invalid.
Authorized signatory of company cheque from company account is not 'drawer' under Section 138 NI Act; company is drawer and must be impleaded with notice served; non-impleadment fatal, proceedings qu....
A sole proprietorship cannot be prosecuted under Section 141 of the N.I. Act unless the proprietor is named in the complaint; the complaint was also quashed for being premature.
Maintaining prosecution under section 138 of the NI Act requires arraigning the company as an accused, and the vicarious liability of individuals associated with the company is contingent upon the co....
Maintaining the prosecution under Sec. 141 of N.I. Act requires the company to be arraigned as the accused.
The non-impleadment of a company in a cheque dishonor case renders the proceedings against its director unsustainable under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not maintainable without the principal offender, the company, being arrayed as an accused, as established by the Supreme Court in An....
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
