Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

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         

 

Similar News