Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal

Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Complaint U/S 138 N.I. Act , Emphasizes Specific Averments in Corporate Liability Cases

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has quashed a criminal complaint while underlining the necessity of specific averments in cases involving corporate liability. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices C.T. RAVIKUMAR and Sanjay Kumar, dealt with an appeal challenging the refusal to quash a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act).

The appellant, accused No. 4 in the case, contended that the complaint against him should be quashed on two grounds: first, he had resigned from the partnership firm before the issuance of the cheque in question, and second, the complaint lacked the mandatory averments required under Section 141(1) of the NI Act.

The High Court had declined to quash the complaint, holding that the issue of the appellant's retirement from the partnership firm was a matter of evidence that needed to be proven at a later stage.

However, the Supreme Court's judgment delved into the intricacies of corporate liability under Section 141(1) of the NI Act. The Court emphasized that specific averments were crucial to establish vicarious liability. It ruled that mere management of a company's affairs did not automatically render an individual responsible for its conduct.

In the judgment, the Court stated, "A bare perusal of Section 141(1) of the NI Act reveals that only that person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence."

The judgment further clarified that the words "was in charge of" and "was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company" should be read conjunctively.

Supreme Court found that the averments in the complaint were insufficient to establish the mandatory requirements under Section 141(1) of the NI Act. As a result, the appellant's appeal was allowed, and the criminal complaint against him was quashed.

The Supreme Court's ruling underscores the importance of precise averments in cases involving corporate liability under Section 138 of the NI Act. This decision provides clarity on the requirements for establishing vicarious liability, thereby setting a precedent for future cases in this domain.

Date of Decision: October 10, 2023

Siby Thomas  vs M/s. Somany Ceramics Ltd.

Latest Legal News