SANDIP BAJIRAO ADLINGE Vs. SHIVAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of all further proceedings pursuant to P.C.No.270/2015 on the file of learned I Additional JMFC, Bagalkot, for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

(2.) Respondent presented a private complaint in PC No.270/2015 before the learned I Additional JMFC, Bagalkot, against the present petitioners as accused Nos.5, 7 and 8 and accused No. 1-Reliable Finance Infra Agro Ltd., of which the present petitioners are Directors and four others. The allegation is that accused No.1- Reliable Finance Infra Agro Ltd., is an Insurance Company dealing with various types of Insurance policies and accused No.2 was the Chairman of the said company and the present petitioners and rest of the accused are all Directors of the same. The further allegation is that on 28/7/2015, an Insurance policy was issued in favour of the complainant with sum assured for Rs.5,00,000/- with further assurance that he would be paid Rs.97,500/- per year for a period of five years. Accordingly, respondent received a cheque bearing No.000088 for Rs.97,500/- on 28/7/2015 issued by accused Nos.2 to 8 on behalf of accused No 1-company for the period of first year. It is stated in the complaint that when the cheque was presented for encashment, it was returned and dishonoured. On account of the same, respondent presented a private complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners who are accused No.5, 7 and 8 in the private complaint submits that admittedly, accused No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 of which accused No.2 is Chairman and the present petitioners and others who are the co-accused are the Directors. He submits that there is absolutely no allegation in the complaint presented by the respondent that the present petitioners were either incharge of the Administration/business of accused No.1 Company or that they are the signatories to the cheque. He therefore submits that vicarious liability for having committed the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act cannot be fastened on the present petitioners and, therefore, the very complaint itself as against the present petitioners is misconceived and therefore, it is liable to be quashed.