Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against Employees in Cheque Dishonour Case Due to Lack of Specific Allegations — Directors and Employees Not Liable Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Without Active Role in Transaction.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 12
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The judgment pertains to two criminal writ petitions filed by employees and directors of a company seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, read with other provisions. The complainant, Khushnuma H. Behram, alleged that a cheque issued by the company was dishonoured. The petitioners, who were not signatories to the cheque and had no specific role in the transaction, were arraigned as accused. The court examined the principles of vicarious liability under Section 138 and held that in the absence of specific allegations regarding the petitioners' involvement in the issuance of the cheque, they cannot be prosecuted. The court quashed the FIR against the petitioners, emphasizing that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of process.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138 - Vicarious Liability - Directors and Employees - Quashing of FIR - The court considered whether employees and directors of a company can be held liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, without specific allegations of their involvement in the issuance of the cheque. Held that in the absence of specific averments showing the role of the petitioners in the transaction, the criminal proceedings against them are liable to be quashed. (Paras 1-15)

B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Inherent Powers - Quashing of FIR - The court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the FIR against the petitioners as the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law. (Paras 16-20)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioners, who are employees and directors of a company, can be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in the absence of specific allegations regarding their role in the issuance of the dishonoured cheque.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the petitions and quashed the FIR against the petitioners.

Law Points

  • Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
  • 1881
  • vicarious liability
  • directors and employees
  • specific allegations
  • criminal proceedings
  • quashing of FIR
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2022 LawText (BOM) (10) 79

Criminal Writ Petition No. 3808 of 2021 and Criminal Writ Petition No. 3813 of 2021

2022-10-13

Revati Mohite Dere, S. M. Modak

Pranav Badheka, Aditya Mithe, Rajendra Barot, Dhirajkumar Totala, Amey Mirajkar, Praneeta Ragjji, Parimal Kashyap, S. D. Shinde, Raja Thakare, Pervez Rustom Khan, Diksha Shetty

Priya Paul, Vaishali Chavan, Ramkrishnan S., Animesh Raizada, Mayur Patni

State of Maharashtra, Khushnuma H. Behram

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal writ petitions seeking quashing of FIR under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of FIR and criminal proceedings against the petitioners.

Filing Reason

The petitioners, being employees and directors of a company, were arraigned in an FIR under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, despite having no specific role in the issuance of the dishonoured cheque.

Issues

Whether the petitioners can be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in the absence of specific allegations regarding their role in the cheque transaction.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that they were not signatories to the cheque and had no involvement in the transaction, and thus cannot be vicariously liable under Section 138. Respondent argued that the petitioners, being directors and employees, are liable for the acts of the company.

Ratio Decidendi

In the absence of specific allegations showing the role of directors and employees in the issuance of a dishonoured cheque, they cannot be held vicariously liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Continuing such proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.

Judgment Excerpts

In the absence of specific averments showing the role of the petitioners in the transaction, the criminal proceedings against them are liable to be quashed.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed criminal writ petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, seeking quashing of FIR No. 3808 and 3813 of 2021 registered at Azad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai.

Acts & Sections

  • Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 138
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka adjourns writ petition filed by employees of Bharat Electronics Limited for preliminary hearing; no final order passed. Petition seeks mandamus and certiorari based on allegations of discrimination and violation of service rul...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Considers Validity of KIC Order Directing Disclosure of Evaluated Answer Scripts in GP-2015 Recruitment. KPSC Contends That Supreme Court's UPSC v. Angesh Kumar Decision Exempts Such Examination Information from Disclosure Und...