FAROOQ DADABHAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners who are accused 5 and 6 before the IV Additional chief Municipal Magistrate, Bangalore, have sought for quashing of the charge-sheet filed for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 read with section 34 of the IPC in C. C. No. 8257 of 2001.

(2.) THE brief facts are as follows:

(3.) THE learned Counsel Sri S. G. Bhagawan relying on the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court contended that the learned chief Metropolitan Magistrate erred in taking cognizance against these two petitioners though there is no "prima facie" case. Secondly, contended that the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has not even made any efforts to find out whether they are responsible for any liability as such, as these two petitioners have not signed the cheques. Therefore, they cannot be vicariously made liable for the offence alleged. That apart, there is nothing on record to show whether they were in charge of the company activities or not. That the charge-sheet material showing that they are only the Directors. Further contended that on examining the materials placed on record, no overt act has been attributed and in the absence of a prima facie case, the filing of the charge-sheet against these two petitioners is not sustainable, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings.