Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL
Maya Rani Rao – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction and application for quashing. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. fact background of the cheque issuance and complaint process. (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments regarding non-impleadment of company. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. court's observations on maintainability of application. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. legal standards for issuing demand notices. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. invalidity of proceedings when initial action is not lawful. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. court's review of section 319 cr.p.c. application. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 8. permissible amendment in complaint under n.i. act. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 9. failure to properly explain delay in impleading company. (Para 27 , 28) |
| 10. conclusion: rejection of application. (Para 29) |
JUDGMENT :
Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.
1. Heard Sri Sushil Kr. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Uday Bhan, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The instant application has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 10.9.2024 passed by Presiding Officer, Special Judge, N.I. Act, Agra in application dated 2.7.2024, under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in Complaint Case No. 2186 of 2017 (Maya Rani vs. Ram Autar), under Section 138 N.I. Act, P.S. Jagdishpu
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the notice to the accused under Section 138(b) of the N.I. Act is not mandatory if the company and other directors have been served with statu....
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 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....
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of impleading the company as an accused for maintaining the prosecution under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments act, 1881.
The court affirmed that a cheque issued in an individual's capacity does not require the company to be impleaded as an accused, and the complaint was not time-barred.
The essential requirements for a valid complaint under Section 138 NI Act, including the demand notice to the drawer of the cheque and the arraignment of the company as the accused when the cheque is....
When no offence is attributable to the Company, it is not possible to attach liability on the Managing Director by the deeming provisions of Section 141 of the N.I. Act.
The company must be summoned as an accused in Section 138 N.I. Act cases for proceedings against its Directors to be valid.
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
