Absence of Videography Alone Not Sufficient For Bail When Custody is Less Than a Year: Delhi High Court Refuses Bail in Commercial Quantity Heroin Use of Permitted Synthetic Colour in Dal Masur Still Constitutes Adulteration: Punjab & Haryana High Court Uphold Conviction Penalty Must Not Result in Civil Death of Professionals: Delhi High Court Reduces Two-Year Suspension of Insolvency Professional, Citing Disproportionate Punishment Right of Cross-Examination is Statutory, Cannot Be Denied When Documents Are Exhibited Later: Chhattisgarh High Court Allows Re-Cross-Examination Compounding after Adjudication is Impermissible under FEMA: Calcutta High Court Declines Post-Adjudication Compounding Plea Tears of a Child Speak Louder Than Words: Bombay HC Confirms Life Term for Man Who Raped 4-Year-Old Alleged Dowry Death After Forced Remarriage: Allahabad High Court Finds No Evidence of Strangulation or Demand “Even If Executant Has No Title, Registrar Must Register the Document If Formalities Are Met” — Supreme Court  Declares Tamil Nadu's Rule 55A(i) Ultra Vires the Registration Act, 1908 Res Judicata Is Not Optional – It’s Public Policy: Supreme Court Slams SEBI for Passing Second Final Order in Fraud Case Against Vital Communications Ltd A Person Has Died… Insurance Company Cannot Escape Liability Without Proving Policy Violation: Supreme Court Slams High Court for Exonerating Insurer in Fatal Accident Case Calling Someone by Caste Name Is Not Enough – It Must Be Publicly Done to Attract SC/ST Act: Supreme Court Acquits All in Jharkhand Land Dispute Case Broken Promises Don’t Make Rape – Mature Adults in Long-Term Relationships Must Accept Responsibility: Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case Against NRI Man Every Broken Relationship Can’t Be Branded Rape: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Retired Judge Accused of Sexual Exploitation on Promise of Marriage No Evidence, No Motive, Not Even Proof of Murder: Supreme Court Slams Conviction, Acquits Man Accused of Killing Wife After Two Years of Marriage You Can’t Assume Silence Is Consent: Supreme Court Sends Back ₹46 Lakh Insurance Dispute to NCDRC for Fresh Determination “Voyage Must Start and End Before Monsoon Sets In — But What If That’s Practically Impossible?” SC Rules Against Insurance Company in Shipping Dispute No Criminal Case Can Be Built on a Land Deal That’s Three Decades Old Without Specific Allegations: Supreme Court Upholds Quashing of FIR Against Ex-JK Housing Chief Just Giving a Call for Protest Doesn’t Make One Criminally Liable - Rail Roko Protest Quashed Against KCR Ex-CM: Telangana High Court Ends 13-Year-Old Proceedings for 2011 Telangana Agitation This Is Not a Case of Greed Simplicitor but a Celebration of Fraud: Karnataka High Court Grants Specific Performance, Slams Vendor for Violating Court Orders

High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings in Cheque Bounce Case, Citing Lack of Vicarious Liability

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On 10 July 2023, In a significant ruling, the Hon'ble Court delivered a landmark judgement quashing criminal proceedings in a cheque bounce case, highlighting the lack of vicarious liability on the part of the accused. The judgement, delivered by Hon'ble Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt, has far-reaching implications for cases involving allegations under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The court, while exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasized the need to prevent the abuse of court processes and ensure the ends of justice. It held that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would cause undue hardship to the accused and would not serve any fruitful purpose.

High court stated, "Criminal prosecution is a serious matter; it affects the liberty of a person. No greater damage can be done to the reputation of a person than dragging him in a criminal case." It further emphasized that criminal prosecution should not be used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking personal vendetta.

The judgement focused on the specific averments in the complaint and the burden on the accused to establish their non-involvement in the company or firm's affairs. The court stated, "The complainant is supposed to know only generally as to who were in charge of the affairs of the company or firm... It is only the Directors of the company or the partners of the firm who have the special knowledge about the role they had played."

In reaching its decision, the court took into account various precedents, including the case of Anil Khadkiwala and Mohan Singh, which recognized the maintainability of a successive application under changed circumstances. The court also referred to the case of Harshendra Kumar D. v. Rebatilata Koley, which emphasized the need for unimpeachable evidence or acceptable circumstances to demonstrate the non-liability of the accused.

This judgement serves as a reminder that the court's inherent powers should be exercised cautiously and sparingly, considering the facts and circumstances of each case. It highlights the importance of establishing a prima facie case against the accused and avoiding the misuse of criminal prosecution.

The ruling provides respite to the present applicant, whose criminal cases have been quashed, while allowing the complainant to pursue appropriate remedies under criminal and civil laws. This judgement is expected to have a significant impact on future cheque bounce cases, ensuring a fair and just legal process.

Representing the applicant stated, "This judgement reinforces the principle of justice and prevents the misuse of criminal prosecution. It provides relief to the accused who resigned from the company prior to the alleged transaction, highlighting the importance of specific averments and burden of proof on the accused."

Date of Decision: 10 July 2023

MANOJKUMAR RAMNIKBHAI ROJIVADIYA (PATEL)   vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Similar News