Petitioner quashed a criminal complaint under the Insecticides Act, relying on company records showing she was a non-active director with no salary or management role, citing Supreme Court precedent requiring specific averments of responsibility.
Complaint No.143 dated 25.05.2013 and all subsequent proceedings are quashed against the petitioner.
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.
252
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-19943 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 14, 2017
Kavita Joshi
...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr.Sanjeev Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr.Shekhar Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.V.P.S.Sidhu, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the charge-sheet dated 26.04.2014 and for quashing of criminal complaint bearing No.143 dated 25.05.2013 filed under Sections 3(K)(I), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Section 27 (5) of the Insecticides Rule 1971 titled as 'State through Insecticides Inspector, Gurdaspur vs. M/s Sonu Kheti Store and ors.'.
Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel appeared and contested the petition.
At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly argued on one point that present petitioner Kavita Joshi was simply a Vineet Gulati 2017.02.22 15:34 I attest to the accuracy andnon-executive Director, who was not paid any salary and in the complaint, authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CRM No.M-19943 of 2014
-2-
nothing has been mentioned that she is running the day-to-day affairs of the company.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record.
I have gone through the complaint Annexure P-1, in which it is stated that show cause notice was given to manufacturer and their responsible persons Anil Sehgal, Quality Manager, Kavita Joshi, Director and A.S.Malhi, responsible person. The perusal of the complaint nowhere shows that the present Director is running day-to-day affairs of the company. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon one certificate given by Sh.S.C.Malhotra, CA, who stated that Kavita Joshi was appointed on 01.12.2004 as Director of M/s Coromandel Agrico Private Limited and she has resigned from the directorship on 01.09.2012. As per the record of the company, Kavita Joshi had not been paid any salary/fee by company as a Director at any point of time as she was a non active Director. Annexure P- 3 is another certificate issued by K.K.Bhatt, Director stating the same facts. As per the record of the company also, Kavita Joshi had not been given salary at any point of time as she was non-active Director.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court Form 32, copy of which is Annexure P-4, which also shows that the present petitioner as Director is not associated with the Company w.e.f 01.09.2012. The perusal of these documents and complaint shows that the present petitioner is not running the day-to-day affairs of the company.
Learned State counsel has relied upon one undated affidavit, according to which A.S.Malhi and Anil Sehgal were appointed as Vineet Gulati 2017.02.22 15:34 I attest to the accuracy andresponsible person for the conduct of business of the company under authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CRM No.M-19943 of 2014
-3-
Section 33 of the Insecticides Act. The perusal of this affidavit itself shows that these two persons have been nominated responsible under Section 33 of the Insecticides Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of NCT Delhi vs. Rajiv Khurana, 2010(3) RCR (Criminal) 912 , in which it is held as under:-
“21.The legal position which emerges from a series of judgments is clear and consistent that it is imperative to specifically aver in the complaint that the accused was in charge of and was responsible for the conduct of business of the company. Unless clear averments are specifically incorporated in the complaint, the respondent cannot be compelled to face the rigmarole of a criminal trial.”
Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, I find that as there is no specific averment in the complaint that Kavita Joshi was Incharge and responsible for the day-to-day affairs and business of the company, therefore, complaint cannot be filed against present petitioner and it is liable to be quashed.
Therefore, finding merit in the present petition, the same is allowed. Complaint bearing No.143 dated 25.05.2013 filed under Sections 3(K)(I), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Section 27 (5) of the Insecticides Rule 1971 titled as 'State through Insecticides Inspector, Gurdaspur vs. M/s Sonu Kheti Store and ors. and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the petitioner.
February 14, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable
Yes No
Vineet Gulati 2017.02.22 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a criminal complaint can be maintained against a director who does not run day-to-day affairs of the company.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of NCT Delhi vs. Rajiv KhuranaApplied¶27
State of NCT Delhi vs. Rajiv Khurana, 2010(3) RCR (Criminal) 912
7 provisions across 3 enactments
Kavita Joshi
State of Punjab
INDERJIT SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
