NITIN MESHRAM Vs. SOFTMART SOLUTIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present case raises a fundamental issue with regard to necessary averments to invite vicarious liability of persons concerned with the affairs of the company by virtue of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for commission of an offence under Section 138 thereof in relation to dishonouring of a cheque, the primary liability for which falls on the drawer company.

(2.) THE petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No. 1718/1/03 filed by the respondent for commission of such offences, on the ground that there is no averment in the complaint as to how or in what manner the petitioner was responsible for the conduct of the business of the company or otherwise responsible in regard to its functioning. It is submitted that the petitioner has not issued any cheque and the averments in the complaint taken in their entirety do not disclose commission of any offence under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by the petitioner.

(3.) IN support of the contention noticed hereinabove, reliance is placed on several pronouncements of the Apex Court reported at, 2005 SCC (Cri.) 1975 SMS Pharmaceutical Limited v. Neeta Bhalla and Anr.; : (2007) 3 SCC 693 Saroj Kumar Poddar v. State (NCT of Delhi and Anr.); : (2006) 10 SCC 581 Sabitha Ramamurthy and Anr. v. R.B.S. Channabasavaradhya; : (2008) 8 SCC 278 Green Earth Asphalt & Power Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra through PSO and Ors. & : (2009) 9 Scale 455 Jugesh Sehgal v. Shamsher Singh Jogi.