SHEKHAR SUMAN Vs. SHIV SHANKER ASSOCIATES
LAWS(J&K)-2006-10-13
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on October 10,2006

SHEKHAR SUMAN Appellant
VERSUS
Shiv Shanker Associates Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) BY this common order this batch of petitions based on common question of law and facts are being disposed of.
(2.) THROUGH these petitions petitioner -accused No.5 Shekhar Suman seeks to invoke Section 561 -A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaints pending in the Court of Spl. Excise Mobile Magistrate, Jammu by which cognizance has been taken and process has been issued against him. The accused/Company Growell Multi Trade India Ltd. issued cheques in favour of the complainant. On complainants producing the cheques in the Bank concerned through its banker, the same were dishonored and returned with the memo indicating that funds were insufficient in the account. Undoubtedly, cheques have been issued and signed on behalf of the company by the accused No.3/Director and Promoter of Growell Multi Company and not by the accused/petitioner, yet the complainants have filed the complaints for prosecuting the accused/petitioner for commission of the offence under Section 138 read with Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act, (here -in -after called the Act).
(3.) THE case of the accused/petitioner is that he has unnecessarily been arrayed as an accused, whereas he has nothing to do with the affairs of the company. He is neither shareholder nor the Director, Managing Director or Chairman of the Company. He states that he has allowed the company to use his name as its Brand Ambassador and acted as a Brand Ambassador of the company at some selected occasions. The Brand Ambassador is totally alien to the business of the company and has nothing to do with its financial or operational aspects. In this view of the matter, the process issued by the trial court qua the petitioner cannot be sustained in law. Mr. Salathia, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the petitioner has no concern whatsoever with the running of the business of the company at the relevant time and simply on the vague allegation which are not supported by any material in the complaint that he is Director/Co -ordinator or promoter of the company, he cannot prima facie be held to be vicariously liable for the alleged offence committed by the Company -accused.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.