Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.52 seconds)Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Sharad Kumar Sanghi vs Sangita Rane on 10 February, 2015
7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sharad Kumar Sanghi vs.
Sangita Rane reported in (2015) 12 SCC 781 and submits that in paragraph-11
to 13 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that
when there is no allegation against the Managing Director and when a
company has not been arrayed as a party, no proceeding can be initiated
against it even where vicarious liability is fastened under certain statutes. In
this respect, it is relevant to refer to paragraph-11 to 13 of the said judgment,
which reads as under:-
Aneeta Hada vs M/S Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt.Ltd on 8 May, 2008
"11. In the case at hand as the complainant's initial
statement would reflect, the allegations are against the Company,
the Company has not been made a party and, therefore, the
allegations are restricted to the Managing Director. As we have
noted earlier, allegations are vague and in fact, principally the
allegations are against the Company. There is no specific allegation
against the Managing Director. When a company has not been
arrayed as a party, no proceeding can be initiated against it even
where vicarious liability is fastened under certain statutes. It has
been so held by a three-Judge Bench in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather
Travels and Tours (P) Ltd. [Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and
Tours (P) Ltd., (2012) 5 SCC 661 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 350 :
Aneeta Hada vs M/S Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt.Ltd on 27 April, 2012
16. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated
28.03.2022 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh in connection with
Ramgarh P.S. Case No.131 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. Case No.352 of 2022,
is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners.
Sushil Sethi vs The State Of Arunachal Pradesh on 31 January, 2020
8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners further relies upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sushil Sethi &
Another vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh reported in (2020) 3 SCC 240 and
submits that in paragraph-8.2 of the said judgment, it has been held that where
there is no specific allegation against the Managing Director or even the
Director and there are no allegations to constitute the vicarious liability, the
continuation of the criminal proceeding against the Managing Director or the
Director will amount to abuse of process of law.
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Dr Mrs Nupur Talwar vs Cbi Delhi And Anr on 6 January, 2012
9. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners lastly relies upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nupur Talwar vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation, Delhi & Another reported in (2012) 2 SCC 188 and
submits that therein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that in
that case, the Magistrate taking cognizance has passed a well-reasoned order
while differing from Final Report submitted by the police. It is next submitted
that even if the entire allegations made in the FIR and the materials available in
the case-diary as well as Final Report are considered to be true in their entirety,
there is absolutely no allegation for commission of the offences punishable
under Section 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and the ingredients of the
offence under Section 420 and 406 is not made out against the petitioners.
4 Cr. M.P. No.1358 of 2023
Hence, it is submitted that continuation of this criminal proceeding against the
petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, it is submitted
that the prayer, as prayed for in this Cr.M.P., be allowed.