Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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

Latest Legal News