SHEKHAR SUMAN Vs. SHIV SHANKER ASSOCIATES
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Shiv Shanker Associates
Click here to view full 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
(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.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.