Allowed

Rosemary Ratnam v. Anam Hussain (Minor)

Karnataka HC18 Jul 2022CRL.P/3002/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two criminal petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of summonses issued in a cheque dishonour case. The High Court held that in absence of specific allegations of active involvement or concurrent directorship, summoning former or non-directors was impermissible and an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petitions allowed; impugned proceedings against petitioners-accused Nos.4, 6 and 8 quashed.

Rosemary Ratnam Vs Anam Hussain (Minor) — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3002/2019 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3001/2019

¶7

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3002/2019:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

ROSEMARY RATNAM AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, W/O JOSEPH CRISTOPHER RATNAM, R/AT NO.75 (OLD NO.30/1), PROMENADE ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BANGALORE - 560 005.

¶10

IGNATIUS ORWIN NORONHA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O JAMES NARONHA, R/AT HOUSE NO.1/3/213, ASHOK NAGAR POST, KOTTARA, MANGALORE-575 002.

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI ANANDARAMA K., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

ANAM HUSSAIN (MINOR) S/O VAHIDA, R/O KOLKAR ALI HOUSE, NEAR NOOR MASJID,

¶15

¶16

CHURCH ROAD, GANGOLLI VILLAGE & POST, KUNDAPURA TALUK-575 002, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN MOTHER VAHIDA (MAJOR), W/O MOHAMAD HUSSAIN KOLKAR, R/O KOLKAR ALI HOUSE, NEAR NOOR MASJID, CHURCH ROAD, GANGOLLI VILLAGE & POST, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-575 002.

¶17

...RESPONDENT

¶18

(RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.12.2017 AND ORDER DATED 19.1.2018 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC, KUNDAPURA IN C.C.NO.2054/2007 AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2054/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC, KUNDAPURA.

¶20

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3001/2019:

¶21

BETWEEN:

¶22

JEROME D'SILVA S/O THOMAS D'SILVA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, RESIDING AT ROSHAN VILLA ASHOK NAGAR POST, KOTTARA MANGALORE-575 002.

¶23

...PETITIONER

¶24

(BY SRI. ANANDARAMA K., ADVOCATE)

¶25

¶26

AND:

¶27

ANAM HUSSAIN S/O VAHIDA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/O KOLKAR ALI HOUSE, NEAR NOOR MASJID, CHURCH ROAD, GANGOLLI VILLAGE AND POST, KUNDAPURA TALUK-575 002.

¶28

...RESPONDENT

¶29

(V/O DATED 23.04.2021 SERVICES ON RESPONDENT HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶30

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.12.2017 AND ORDER DATED 19.01.2018 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND J.M.F.C., KUNDAPURA, IN C.C.NO.2054/2007 AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2054/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND J.M.F.C., KUNDAPURA.

¶31

THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

Since both the petitions arise out of the same impugned

¶34

proceedings, they are taken up together and disposed of by a

¶35

common order.

¶36

¶37

Private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 188, alleging that, a cheque which was issued by M/s Mehna Plantations Pvt. Ltd., in favour of the complainant when presented for realization was dishonored for want of funds.

¶38

The learned Magistrate after recording the sworn statement of the complainant took cognizance of the aforesaid offence and issued summons to the petitioners. Such being the case, the complainant filed a memo on 17.12.2015, for arraigning the petitioners as accused in the said complaint.

¶39

Taking exception of the same, these petitions are filed.

¶40

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-

¶41

accused submits that, in the absence of any corroborative materials to establish the involvement of the petitioners-accused in the aforesaid offence, arraigning of the petitioners as accused is contrary to Section 141 of N.I.Act. He further submits that petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 8 ceased to be the directors of the Company much prior to the date of the issuance of the alleged

¶42

¶43

cheque, which is evident from the Form-No.32 submitted by the said petitioners-accused No.4 and 8 with the Registrar's of Companies and petitioner-accused No.6 was never the Director of the Company at any point of time and petitioners-accused are no way connected with the affairs of the Company.

¶44

Respondent No.2 though served with notice has remained absent.

¶45

I have examined the submissions made by the

¶46

learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-accused No.4, 6 and 8.

¶47

Perusal of the complaint indicates that there is no

¶48

allegations against the petitioners-accused that they were actively involved in the affairs of the company as on the date of the commission of the aforesaid offence. In the absence of any specific allegation so as to hold the petitioners-accused as vicariously guilty of the offence along with the company, the registration of the private complaint against the petitionersaccused is impermissible.

¶49

¶50

Perusal of the Form No.32 submitted by the

¶51

petitioners with the Registrar's of Companies indicates that the petitioners-accused No.4 and 8 ceased to be the directors of the Company with effect from 25.03.1995. This document has remained un-controverted by the complainant. Hence, it implies that the petitioners-accused No.4 and 8 ceased to be the directors of the company as on the date of the commission of the alleged offence. Insofar petitioner-accused No.6 is concerned, a copy of the annual returns submitted with the Registrar's of Companies indicates that the petitioner-accused No.6 was not a director of the company at any point of time or as on the date of the commission of the aforesaid offence. Hence, the registration of the case against the petitioneraccused No.6 who was not the director of the company as on the date of the commission of the offence is also impermissible.

¶52

In view of the preceding analysis, I am of the considered opinion that, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.4, 6 and 8 will

¶53

¶54

be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following order:

¶55

Criminal petitions are allowed.

¶56

Impugned proceedings in C.C.No.2054/2007 pending on

¶57

the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Kundapura, insofar it relates to petitioners-accused Nos.4,6 and

8 is hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

HR

Rosemary Ratnam v. Anam Hussain (Minor)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rosemary Ratnam v. Anam Hussain (Minor)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri N Jayaram Vs State of Karnataka

Sri J a Mahaveer Vs Assistant Executive Engineer

Sri Narayana Naika P Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Spi Green Energy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.D. Chandrashekara Vs the State of Karnataka by

Rishi Ventures Vs Jayees Steels