Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
N. TUKARAMJI, J
MS. POONAM KUMARI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF TELANGANA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of a private complaint under section 138. (Para 1) |
| 2. lack of directorial involvement negates liability. (Para 3 , 8) |
| 3. vicarious liability requires active role in company operations. (Para 4 , 9) |
| 4. supreme court guidance on director liability and involvement. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 5. court's conclusion on unreasonable prosecution without evidence. (Para 10) |
ORDER
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘CrPC’) seeking quashment of STC NI No.4238 of 2023 on the file of the VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at Manoranjan Complex against the petitioner/accused No.3.
2. I have heard Mr. K. Pradeep Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.1-State.
3. The essential facts, in brief, are that the respondent No.2/the complainant initiated a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the NI Act’) against the petitioner/Accused No.3/Director,Accused No.1/Company/Managing Director, and Accused No.2/another Director of the company.
According to the complainant,
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
