Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Non-Compliance with Section 202 CrPC: High Court Sets Aside Summoning Order in Cheque Bounce Case Involving Non-Executive Directors

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the summoning order against several petitioners, including Non-Executive Independent Directors of M/s Housing Development Infrastructure Limited (HDIL), in a case pertaining to the dishonour of cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, while delivering the judgment, emphasized the crucial aspect of jurisdiction and procedural compliance, particularly highlighting the non-compliance with Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) by the trial court.

The petitioners had approached the High Court seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 25.11.2019, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana. They argued that as Non-Executive Independent Directors, they were not involved in the day-to-day business of the accused company and had even resigned before the cheques were presented for encashment.

In his observation, Justice Brar stated, "Most of the petitioners are senior citizens and reside in Mumbai, and the drill of Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. was not followed." This was a critical point as the mandatory requirements of Section 202 were not fulfilled before issuing the process against the accused residing outside the local jurisdiction of the trial court.

The court relied on several precedents from the Supreme Court to support its decision, including the judgments in the cases of SMS Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Neeta Bhalla and Girdhari Lal Gupta v. D.H. Mehta and another, which discuss the liability of directors not involved in the day-to-day operations of a company.

Ultimately, the High Court directed the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, to consider the matter afresh in accordance with the law, by taking recourse to Section 202 Cr.P.C. The Court also made it clear that its observations should not influence the trial court, which is to proceed uninfluenced by the High Court's observations.

Date of decision: 19.01.2024

LALIT MOHAN MEHTA AND OTHERS  VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER         

 

Latest Legal News