Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal GST Officer Froze Business Accounts Without Any Legal Basis, Ignored Taxpayer for Three Months: Bombay High Court Imposes Personal Costs Weapon Recovered, But No Forensic Report, No Independent Witness — Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Accused

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