SHARMILA Vs. RICH SOURCE INTERNATIONAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Criminal Original Petitions have been filed, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 3958 and 3959 of 2014, respectively, on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No. 2, Magistrate Level, Egmore, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, who has been arrayed as accused No. 3 therein.

(2.) THE respondents herein filed the abovesaid cases/complaints against the petitioner and two others under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the present Petitions are filed by the petitioner to quash the said cases on the ground that the petitioner is only one of Directors of the first accused/Company, and she is not in charge of conduct of the business of the first accused/Company, and in the absence of any material produced by the respondents that the petitioner was in charge and responsible for conduct of the first accused/Company, she cannot be vicariously made liable for the acts of the accused Nos. 1 and 2.

(3.) MR . M. Jaikumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a reading of the complaints would also disclose that the second accused, viz., the husband of the petitioner, issued a letter of undertaking, dated 17.12.2012, and requested the complainants/respondents to give him a hand loan in his individual capacity. The respondents/complainants also accepted the request of the second accused, and as per letter of undertaking, the second accused, who is the Managing Director of the first accused/Company, agreed to repay the loan with interest within a specific period, and towards the discharge of that loan, cheques were issued by him on behalf of the first accused/Company. Therefore, it has been made clear by the complainants itself, that the loan was payable by the second accused in his individual capacity, and in respect of the said loan, cheques were issued, and therefore, the petitioner, who is the third accused, cannot be made vicariously liable for dishonour of cheques. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments reported in i) : [2009] 10 SUPREME COURT CASES 48 in re (K.K. Ahuja v. V.K. Vora and another) and ii) : [2010] 3 SUPREME COURT CASES 330 in re (National Small Industries Corporation Ltd., v. Harmeet Singh Paintal and another).