High Court allowed a quashing petition filed under Section 482 CrPC. The court held that prosecuting an Executive Director under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act without impleading the company is bad in law, following Aneeta Hada.
Complaint in C.C.No.14412 of 2009 before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai is quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.06.2015
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN
Crl.O.P.No.28683 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010
Faizel Hashim Executive Director, M/s Chennai Fashions (India) Pvt. Ltd., K-45 Apparel Park, Katrambakkam, Main Road, Sipcot, Irrungattukottai, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District 602 105. ..Petitioner /vs/
Mr.S.L.Sud
Prop M/s South India Marketing Associates, Rep.by its Power Agent P.Viswananthan, No.10, Ganga Nagar, 1st Main Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. ..Respondent
Prayer:
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to call for the records in C.C.No.14412 of 2009 on the file of XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Rishi.S.Ahuja For Respondent :Mr.K.G.Senthilkumar ---ORDER
The accused in C.C.No.14412/2009 on the file of XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai is the petitioner.
2.This petition is filed by the respondent under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act to quash the above complaint in C.C.No.14412 of 2009 on the file of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidpet, Chennai.
3.It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that prosecution was launched against the petitioner in the capacity of Executive Director, without impleading the company. Therefore, the prosecution is bad in law as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Aneeta Hada and others v. Godather Travels & Tours Pvt.Ltd. and another [2012 (5)CTC 101].
4.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that though a cheque was issued in the name of the company, cheque was signed by the petitioner in the capacity of Executive Director. Therefore, he was arrayed as accused.
5.I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent. In the above said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that without impleading the company, the Executive Director or Directors cannot be made as party and the Directors are vicariously liable only after making the company as party. Hence, the prosecution launched by the respondent against the petitioner, without impleading the company, is bad in law and in the light of the judgment referred above, this ciriminal original peititon deserves to be allowed.
6.In the result, this criminal original petition is allowed and the complaint in C.C.No.14412 of 2009 on the file of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai is quashed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. ari s/dAssistant Registrar(J) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. 2.-do- thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 3.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras. + 3 ccs to Mr.Rishi S.Ahuja, Advocate sR 28454 ksj(co) prk19/6 Crl.O.P.No.28683 of 2010
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a prosecution launched against an Executive Director under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is maintainable without impleading the company.
Whether the judgment in Aneeta Hada v. Godather Travels applies to quash the complaint where the company was not made a party.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Aneeta Hada and others v. Godather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd.Explained¶15
Aneeta Hada and others v. Godather Travels & Tours Pvt.Ltd. and another [2012 (5) CTC 101]
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Faizel Hashim
S.L. Sud
R.S. Ramathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
