Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.30 seconds)
Radikal Foods Limited And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 February, 2021 cites

State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990

In well celebrated judgement reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Hon'ble Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 19733 - S R Pandian - Full Document

N. Rangachari vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd on 19 April, 2007

12. From above stated case law it is apparent that, it is necessary to specifically aver in a complaint under section 141 of Negotiable Instrument Act that at the time the offence was committed, the person accused was in-charge of, and responsible for the conduct of business of the company. This averment is an essential requirement of Section 141 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The requirement of Section 141 of Negotiable Instrument Act is that the person sought to be made liable should be in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time. This has to be averred as a fact as there is no deemed liability of a Director in such cases. However, in view of law laid down in case of N. Rangachari (supra) it is equally clear that if from reading the complaint as a whole, it appears that the allegations in the complaint are that at the time at which the dishonoured cheque was issued by the company, the persons were the Directors of the company and were in-charge of the affairs of the company, it is not proper to split hairs in reading the complaint so as to come to a conclusion that the allegations as a whole are not sufficient to show that at the relevant point of time the appellant and the other are not alleged to be persons in-charge of the affairs of the company. In such facts and circumstances on the other elements of an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act being satisfied, the burden is on the Board of Directors or the Officers in-charge of the affairs of the company to show that they are not liable to be convicted. Insistence of any special circumstance that makes them not liable is something that is peculiarly within their knowledge and it is for them to establish at the trial such a restriction or to show that at the relevant time they were not in charge of the affairs of the company.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 194 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document
1   2 Next