KRISHNABEN KANTILAL BAVARVA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, the applicant seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of a private complaint registered as Criminal Case No.1417 of 2014 pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morbi for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I. Act').

(2.) The case of the prosecution may be summarized as under;

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. A. M. Dagli appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned private complaint came to be registered against in all total four accused persons, upon which, cognizance was taken by the court concerned and order of issuance of process was passed against all the accused named in the complaint. He further submits that the applicant- accused is not directly or indirectly connected in the commission of the alleged crime. He also submits that as per the case of the prosecution, at the time of the incident, the applicant-accused was the Director of the accused No.1- Company and she has been arraigned as an accused in his capacity as the Director of the Company. Learned advocate Mr. Dagli also submits that the applicant-accused is not at all connected with the alleged transactions as the applicant- accused after her marriage settled at her matrimonial home at Rajkot and was not at all handing the day to day affairs of the Company. He further submits that in fact the company also went in liquidation and was taken over by the Bank of India in the year 2013, however, it might be that the other co-accused persons did issue the cheque, for which, the applicant-accused cannot be held vicariously liable. Learned advocate Mr. Dagli submits that there is no averment in the notice or in the complaint that the applicant-accused was a Director at the relevant point of time and was actively involved in the day to day affairs of the Company, and it is well settled law as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in plethora of its judgments that to hold any Director personally liable, the necessary averments in the notice as well as in the complaint is required rather than making general and vague averments. Learned advocate Mr. Dagli submits that even during her service tenure as the Director, she did not sign any cheques on behalf of the Company as she was not the authorized signatory of the Company. Thus, when none of the alleged transactions had taken place under the Directorship of the applicant-accused, then no criminal liability can be fastened upon her. Learned advocate Mr. Dagli submits that the applicant-accused is an innocent lady who has been falsely implicated in the present offence. Learned advocate Mr. Dagli also submits that even if the entire case of the complainant is accepted as true, none of the ingredients to constitute the offence as alleged are spelt out and, therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the applicant-accused would be nothing, but an abuse of the process of law and, hence, the same is required to be quashed.