Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     Smell of Alcohol in Post-Mortem Insufficient to Establish Intoxication: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Liability of Insurance Company in Motor Accident Case    |     No Grounds for Transfer: Free Bus Fare for Women in Telangana Reduces Travel Burden: Telangana High Court Rejects Wife's Petition to Transfer Divorce Case    |     Mechanical Referrals Invalid: "Deputy Registrar Must Apply Judicial Mind: Allahabad HC Quashes Deputy Registrar's Order in Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Election Dispute    |    

U/S 138 NI Act | Lack of Concrete Evidence Linking The Petitioner To Day-To-Day Operations Of The Accused Firm: Delhi High Court Exonerates 65-year-old Woman in Cheque Bounce Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Delhi High Court, in a significant judgment, has quashed the summoning order against Smt. Santosh Devi, a 65-year-old partner in a firm, in a cheque dishonour case. Justice Amit Sharma, in his ruling, observed, "Insufficient evidence to establish involvement," highlighting the lack of concrete evidence linking the petitioner to the transaction and the day-to-day operations of the accused firm.

The judgment revolves around the application of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). The primary legal issue was whether the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC could be used to quash a summoning order if there were insufficient grounds to involve a partner in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the NI Act.

Smt. Santosh Devi was implicated in a complaint case related to the dishonour of cheques issued by her firm, M/s Shree Ram Developers, towards a business liability. The petitioner contended her wrongful implication, highlighting her non-involvement in the transaction or the daily operations of the firm.

The court meticulously analyzed the role and responsibility of a partner in a firm under Section 141 of the NI Act. Justice Sharma noted the absence of specific averments in the complaint to substantiate the petitioner's active involvement in the transaction or the firm's affairs. The court observed, “Specific involvement in the transaction or the business affairs of the firm must be demonstrated”, emphasizing the necessity of distinct evidence against the accused in such cases.

Decision: Concluding the petitioner's minimal connection with the transaction and the business operations of the accused firm, the court quashed the summoning order, stating, “In the interest of justice and to prevent abuse of process of law, this Court deems it fit to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC.” The decision reflects the judiciary's cautious approach in matters of vicarious liability, especially involving partners in a firm.

Date of Decision: 7th March, 2024

SMT. SANTOSH DEVI @SANTOSHI DEVI vs STATE & ANR.   

Similar News