VAISHALI K. SHAH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner in this case was simply a director of the company named Mansukh Industries Ltd. and she had nothing to do with the day to day affairs of the company. It is further submitted that the issue regarding vicarious liability of the director came to be considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgement rendered in the case of M/s. S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (M/s.) v. Neeta Bhalla & Ors., reported in AIR 2005 SC 3512 = 2006 (1) NIJ 97 (SC) and tested in the fight of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, the complaint does not stand to scrutiny so far as the petitioner is concerned.

(3.) A bare reading of the complaint does not disclose that in what capacity, the petitioner was being impleaded as an accused. It is admitted case of the complainant that the petitioner has not signed the cheque in issue. Apart directors of the company, there is no such averment in the complaint that the petitioner was performing the day to day activities of the company. Considering the complaint on the touchstone of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution of the petitioner in the impugned complaint cannot be continued. The complaint does not make a whisper as regards the participation of the petitioner in the day to day affairs of the company.