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

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.   

Latest Legal News