Karnataka High Court
Sri Madhukar Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 June, 2018
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K. N. Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA
CRL.P. NO.1967/2018
BETWEEN
1. SRI MADHUKAR REDDY
DIRECTOR OF M/S MEDPLUS
(A UNIT OF OPTIVAL HEALTH
SOLUTIONS PVT LTD.),
2. SRI. K SATYA MURALI KRISHNA
DIRECTOR OF M/S MEDPLUS
(A UNIT OF OPTIVAL HEALTH
SOLUTIONS PVT LTD)
BOTH ARE R/AT DOOR NO. 832
VINAYA MARGA MAIN ROAD
SIDDHARTHA LAYOUT
MYSURU 570 011
BOTH ARE ALSO AT GSR ESTATE
3RD FLOOR, 11-08-56
SY NO. 257, & 258/1
OPP. IDPL RAILWAY SIDING
BALANAGAR, RANGA REDDY DIST.
HYDERABAD 500 037 ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. AKKI MANJUNATH GOWDA K., ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY DRUG INSPECTOR 2,
MYSURU CIRCLE, MYSURU 570 023 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. CHETAN DESAI, HCGP)
2
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.1164/2017 WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE III
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M. AT
MYSURU AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. The petitioners have sought for quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C. No.1164/2017 registered against the petitioners (A2 & A3) along with others namely (A1 & A4) for the offences punishable under Sections 18(a)(vi) r/w. Rules 65(2) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Rules pending on the file of the III CJM at Mysuru.
3. Petitioners are arraigned as Accused Nos. 2 & 3. It is evident from the records that the respondent has filed a private complaint in C.C. No.1164/2017 against M/s. Medplus which is an unit of Optival Health 3 Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (for short, 'Company') represented by petitioners Nos. 1 & 2 (A2 to A4). It is the contention of the petitioners that they are simply the Directors of the 1st Accused- Company and they are not responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company. However, the complainant has not explained as to what is the role of the petitioners (A2 & A3) in the 1st Accused- company and whether they are responsible for the day- to-day affairs of the company. However, the complainant has specifically stated that Accused No.4 is the Authorized Signatory and he is responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the Company. On a plain reading of the complaint averments at Para-5, it is specifically stated by the complainant that Accused No.4- G Prabhakar Reddy is the Authorized Signatory of Accused No.1-Company and any offence committed by the firm on his behalf, then he is liable to represent the said company. Except stating that Accused Nos.2 & 3 are the Directors of the said Company, nothing has been stated throughout anywhere in the complaint as to what are the roles played by these petitioners in the 4 Company and as to how they are responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company. In this context, it is worth to mention here a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2009) 10 SCC 48 between K.K. Ahuja Vs. V.K. Vora and Anr., wherein, it has been observed that, -
"....... Offence by company - Vicarious liability of persons of the company- when arises - Essential averments in complaint, requirement of - Held, persons/officers who were in charge of and also responsible for the conduct of business of the company, are vicariously liable for offences of company - Hence, no specific averment in complaint as to role of each is required..."
4. In view of the above it is clear that, the complaint against the persons/officers who were responsible for day-to-day business of the company or incharge of the company should be specific as to their positions, duties and role in the issue of said transaction. Otherwise, merely saying that they are Directors of the Company, as such they responsible for 5 the day-to-day affairs of the company, is not sufficient. In view of the above said decision and in the absence of any such material and averments in the complaint, the criminal court would not have proceeded against the petitioners. In the above circumstances, the complaint is bald enough sofar as the petitioners are concerned. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed so far as these petitioners are concerned. However, the trial Court is at liberty to proceed with the complaint against the other Directors and Authorised Signatories. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the case in C.C. No.1164/2017 registered against the petitioners herein for the aforesaid offences pending on the file of the III Additional CJM at Mysuru, is hereby quashed so far as these petitioners (A2 & A3) are concerned.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*