Allowed

Narender Kumar Yadav @ Narender Rao v. Bharat Bhushan Arya

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Jul 2017CRM-M/28044/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, applying Supreme Court precedent, allowed petitions for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act initiated against an authorized representative. The court held that since the company, the principal offender, was not impleaded as an accused, vicarious liability could not arise, and thus the proceedings were quashed.

What did the court decide?

Complaints No.2367 and 2368, summoning orders, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner.

Narender Kumar Yadav @ Narender Rao Vs Bharat… — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

(i) CRM No.M-28044 of 2015 (O&M)

¶3

Mr.Narender Kumar Yadav @ Narender Rao authorized representative of M/s Alliance-JMR Land Products Pvt. Ltd.

...Petitioner

VERSUS

Bharat Bhushan Arya

...Respondent

(ii) CRM No.M-28062 of 2015 (O&M)

¶9

Mr.Narender Kumar Yadav @ Narender Rao authorized representative of M/s Alliance-JMR Land Products Pvt. Ltd.

...Petitioner

VERSUS

Bharat Bhushan Arya

...Respondent

Date of Decision: July 25, 2017

¶15

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

¶16

Present: Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶17

Mr.Rajesh Arora, Advocate for the respondent.

¶18

¶19

INDERJIT SINGH, J.

¶20

Both the above-mentioned cases are taken up together as the same are between same parties and point of determination is also the same.

¶21

Petitioner Narender Kumar Yadav @ Narender Rao has filed these petitions for quashing the complaints i.e. complaint No.2367 and 2368 dated 12.09.2014 titled as Bharat Bhushan Arya vs. Narender Kumar Yadav and another, summoning orders dated 23.01.2014 and 21.02.2014 and all subsequent proceedings arising thereof.

¶22

Notice of motion was issued. Learned counsel for the

¶23

Vineet Gulati 2017.08.01 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶24

CRM No.M-28044 of 2015 and connected petition -2-

¶25

respondent appeared and contested both the petitions.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record.

¶27

From the record, I find that complainant Bharat Bhushan Arya filed two complaints against Narender Kumar Yadav @ Narender Rao authorized representative and Santosh, authorized signatory of M/s Alliance-JMR Land Products Pvt. Ltd. under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is mainly stated in the complaints that accused issued the cheques in discharge of their pre-existing liability, which on presentation for encashment, were returned back dishonoured with the remarks 'Payment Stopped by drawer'. Legal notices were served. When the amount was not paid, present complaints were filed.

¶28

The only point in both these petitions, as argued by learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the company has not been made a party and present petitioners Narender Kumar Yadav and Santosh have been impleaded being authorized representative and signatory respectively.

¶29

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued that Santosh, who is authorized signature and Narender Kumar Yadav, who is authorized representative of the company, have been impleaded through company in this case.

¶30

The perusal of the record shows that in both the cases M/s Alliance-JMR Land Products Pvt. Ltd. has not been impleaded as an accused. Rather, Narender Kumar Yadav has been impleaded as authorized representative and Santosh has been impleaded as authorized signatory of M/s Alliance-JMR Land Products Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Alliance-JMR Land Vineet Gulati 2017.08.01 10:14 I attest to the accuracy andProducts Pvt. Ltd. has not been impleaded as a party. It is settled law as laid authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶31

CRM No.M-28044 of 2015 and connected petition

¶32

-3-

¶33

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aneeta Hada vs. M/s Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd., 2012(2) RCR (Criminal) 854 , in which, the cheque issued by the company was dishonoured and proceedings against Director of company without arraying the company as accused were quashed and it is held that for maintaining the prosecution under Section 141 of the Act, arraying of a company as an accused is imperative. The other categories of offenders can only be brought in the dragnet on the touchstone of vicarious liability as the same has been stipulated in the provision itself. It is further held that the Company is a juristic person. Companies and corporation houses can no longer claim immunity from criminal prosecution on the ground that they are not capable of possessing the necessary mens rea for commission of criminal offences.

¶34

The company is the principal offender and the present petitioner is vicariously liable being the authorized representative, as stated by the complainant. When principal offender has not been made party, the question of vicarious liability does not arise.

¶35

In view of the above law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I find merit in both the petitions and the same are allowed.

¶36

The complaint No.2367 AG/12-9-14 and complaint No.2368 AG/12-9-14 dated 12.09.2014, both titled as 'Bharat Bhushan Arya vs. Narender Kumar Yadav and another', summoning orders dated 23.01.2014 and 21.02.2014 and all subsequent proceedings arising thereof, are hereby quashed qua the petitioner.

¶37

July 25, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No

¶38

Vineet Gulati 2017.08.01 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Narender Kumar Yadav @ Narender Rao v. Bharat Bhushan Arya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narender Kumar Yadav @ Narender Rao v. Bharat Bhushan Arya

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

Bhola Singh & Ors. Vs Swapan Sharma

Pawan Kumar Vs Gurkirat Kirpal Singh

Satpal Singh and Anr. Vs a. Venu Prasad and Ors.

Major Singh and Anr. Vs Jatinder Singh Gill SHO and Ors.

Mani Ram & Ors. Vs Pooja Tanwaria

Surinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab