Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Amit Mohan Inder Mohan Sharma, filed three criminal applications under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, challenging a common order passed by the 10th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Criminal Revision Applications No. 408/2006, 409/2006, and 410/2006. The revisions were filed against the order of the Magistrate dated 23.8.2005, which rejected the applicant's application for recalling the process issued against him in Criminal Complaint Cases No. 676/1997, 677/1997, and 679/1997 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The respondent no.1, M/s Mamta Agency, had filed the complaints alleging that the applicant, as accused no.4, along with other directors (accused no.2, 3, and 5) of accused no.1 company, A.U. Roller Flour Mill Private Limited, had issued three cheques drawn on Allahabad Bank, Nagpur, dated 28.10.1997 and 21.10.1997, which were dishonoured. The applicant sought recall of process on grounds that he was not liable. The Magistrate rejected the application, and the Sessions Judge dismissed the revisions. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found no merit in the applications and dismissed them, holding that the concurrent orders did not warrant interference under Section 482 CrPC.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Inherent Powers - Recall of Process - The High Court declined to interfere with the concurrent orders of the Magistrate and Sessions Judge rejecting the application for recall of process, as the applicant had not shown any exceptional circumstances or abuse of process warranting exercise of inherent powers. (Paras 1-3)
B) Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138 - Dishonour of Cheque - Vicarious Liability of Directors - The applicant, being a director of the accused company, was prima facie liable for the dishonour of cheques issued by the company in the course of business, and the process was rightly issued against him. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Sessions Judge was justified in dismissing the revision applications challenging the Magistrate's order rejecting the application for recall of process against the applicant for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed all three criminal applications, upholding the orders of the Magistrate and Sessions Judge. The court found no merit in the applications and declined to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.
Law Points
- Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code
- 1973
- vicarious liability of directors
- recall of process
- inherent powers of High Court
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (01) 65
Criminal Application No.2760 of 2006, Criminal Application No.2761 of 2006, Criminal Application No.2762 of 2006
Mr. B.P. Bhatt for the applicant, Mr. A. Shelat for respondent no.1, A.P.P. for respondent no.1
Amit Mohan Inder Mohan Sharma
M/s Mamta Agency & others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal applications under Section 482 CrPC challenging the order of Sessions Judge dismissing revisions against Magistrate's order rejecting recall of process in cheque dishonour cases.
Remedy Sought
The applicant sought quashing of the common order passed by the Sessions Judge and recall of process issued against him in the complaint cases.
Filing Reason
The applicant was accused no.4 in complaints filed by respondent no.1 for dishonour of three cheques issued by the company, and he sought recall of process on grounds that he was not liable.
Previous Decisions
The Magistrate rejected the application for recall of process on 23.8.2005. The Sessions Judge dismissed the revision applications (Criminal Revision Application No.408/2006, 409/2006, 410/2006) against that order.
Issues
Whether the learned Sessions Judge was justified in dismissing the revision applications challenging the Magistrate's order rejecting the application for recall of process.
Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to interfere with the concurrent orders.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicant argued that the process was wrongly issued against him as he was not liable for the dishonour of cheques.
The respondent no.1 contended that the applicant, being a director of the company, was vicariously liable and the process was rightly issued.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that the concurrent orders of the Magistrate and Sessions Judge rejecting the application for recall of process did not suffer from any illegality or abuse of process warranting interference under Section 482 CrPC. The applicant, as a director of the company, was prima facie liable for the dishonour of cheques issued by the company.
Judgment Excerpts
All these applications under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code are directed against the common order passed by the 10th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Revision Application No.408/2006, 409/2006 and 410/2006 filed by the applicant, to challenge the order of issue of process against him for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
The respondent no.1 had filed complaints against the present applicant who is accused no.4 in these complaint cases, for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Act and 420 of the I.P.C.
Procedural History
The respondent no.1 filed three criminal complaints in 1997 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 IPC. The Magistrate issued process against the applicant (accused no.4). The applicant filed an application for recall of process, which was rejected on 23.8.2005. The applicant then filed three criminal revisions (408/2006, 409/2006, 410/2006) before the Sessions Judge, which were dismissed. The applicant then filed the present three criminal applications under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court, which were dismissed on 10.1.2007.
Acts & Sections
- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: 482
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 138
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 420
