At the Stage of Framing Charge, Presumption Suffices; Suicide Note and Grave Suspicion Enough: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Charge Under Section 306 IPC 173 CrPC | Framing of Charge Marks End of Investigation—Complainant Cannot Reopen Probe Merely by Citing Police Lapses: Bombay High Court Recovery Alone Cannot Prove Guilt: Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Photos, Videos Must Go: Supreme Court Binds Warring Spouses to Clean Up Social Media in Matrimonial Settlement Standard for Bail Under Section 319 CrPC Is Higher Than Framing of Charge, But Short of Conviction: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Accused Summoned Mid-Trial State Cannot Arbitrarily Deny Subsidies to 'New Industrial Units' by Retrospectively Applying Expansion Caps: Supreme Court Companies Act | Offence Under Section 448 Is Covered Under Section 447: Supreme Court Bars Private Complaint Without SFIO Nod “See-To-It” Obligation Is Not A Guarantee Under Indian Law: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope Of Section 126 ICA In IBC Disputes Mere Employment of Litigant’s Relatives in Police or Court Doesn't Prove Judicial Bias: Supreme Court Sets Aside Transfer of Criminal Case Reserved Candidate Availing Relaxed Standards in Prelims Cannot Migrate to General Quota for Cadre Allocation: Supreme Court Mere Vesting Does Not Mean Possession: Supreme Court Rules ULC Proceedings Abated For Failure To Serve Mandatory Notice To Actual Occupants Contempt of Courts Act | Natural Justice in Administrative Action: Supreme Court Directs West Bengal Govt to Re-Adjudicate Teachers' Arrears Claims Live-In Relationship with Married Man Not a ‘Relationship in the Nature of Marriage’ Under Domestic Violence Act: Bombay High Court Applies Supreme Court Guidelines Income Tax Act | Substitution of Shares held as Stock-in-Trade upon Amalgamation constitutes Taxable Business Income if Commercially Realisable: Supreme Court Judges Cannot Enact Their Own Protocols During Bail Hearings: Supreme Court Sets Aside Sweeping Age Determination Directions In POCSO If There Is Knowledge That Injury Is Likely To Cause Death, But No Intention Falls Under Section 304 Part II:  Supreme Court High Court Ignored POCSO’s Statutory Rigour, Committed Grave Error in Granting Bail: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Gang-Rape Accused Section 22 HSA | Co-Heirs Have Statutory Right of Pre-Emption Even in Urban Property: Punjab & Haryana High Court 138 NI Act | Issuance of Separate Cheques Gives Rise to Independent Causes of Action, Even if Drawn for Same Underlying Transaction: Supreme Court

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