Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (2.53 seconds)Section 141 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Superintendent And Remembrancer Of ... vs Mohan Singh And Ors. on 8 October, 1974
As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Mohan Singh (Supra), if it is found that there are changed
circumstances after filing of the first application under Section 482
of the CrPC, there is no bar to entertain the second application for
quashing under Section 482 of the CrPC. Therefore, while considering
the entertainability and/or maintainability of the second application
for quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC, what is
required to be considered is, whether after the dismissal of the
first application, there are changed circumstances or not. It is
required to be noted that at the time when the first application was
decided by this Court, the position of law was not clear and in the
subsequent decisions more particularly in the case of the very
applicants, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified the law and and
considering the subsequent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it
cannot be disputed that in absence of any allegation and averments in
the complaint that the applicants were the partners of the original
accused No.1 partnership firm and that they were in day to day
affairs and management of the said partnership firm, they cannot be
prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and/or
that they cannot be held vicariously liable under Section 141 of the
NI Act for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act alleged to
have been committed by the original accused No.1 - partnership
firm. Therefore, subsequent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
can be said to be a changed circumstance and therefore, there is no
bar to entertain the second application for quashing under Section
482 of the CrPC.
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr on 18 January, 2005
In support of his submission, Shri Dave,
learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants has relied
upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Pruthvirajsinh @
Aniruddhsinh v. R.K. Singhia, Deputy Director of the Directorate of
Revenue Intelligence & Anr. reported
in 2000 (2) GLR
1390 as
well as the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Superintendent and
Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W.B. v. Mohan Singh reported
in AIR 1975 SC 1002
as
well as another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Kalyan Chandra
Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr. reported
in 2005(3) GLH 601
(Para 19).
Monaben Ketanbhai Shah & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 10 August, 2004
It is also required to be noted that in case of very applicants, in
the case of Monaben Ketanbhai Shah (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that to make the partners of the partnership firm
vicariously liable for the offence under Section 141 of the NI Act,
there must be specific averments and allegations in the complaint
that they were the partners of the partnership firm who issued the
cheque and that they were in day to day affairs and management of the
said partnership firm and in absence of such specific averments and
allegations in the complaint, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had quashed
and set aside the criminal proceedings against the applicants for the
offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. It is required to be noted
that the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original
complainant is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid proposition
of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
National Small Industries Corp.Ltd vs Harmeet Singh Paintal & Anr on 15 February, 2010
[6.2] Considering
the above facts and circumstances and considering the decisions of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
(Supra); Harmeet Singh Paintal (Supra); Saxons Farms and Ors.
(Supra), in absence of any allegations and averments in the complaint
that they were partners of the accused No.1 - partnership firm
and that they were in day to day affairs and management of the said
partnership firm, to continue the criminal proceedings against the
applicants would be abuse of process of law and the Court as in
absence of any averments and allegations in the complaint, they
cannot be held vicariously liable under Section 141 of the NI Act for
the offences under Section 138 of the NI Act alleged to have been
committed by the original accused No.1 - partnership firm. At
this stage, it is also required to be noted that other complaints
filed by the very respondent No.2 herein filed against the very
applicants for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act have been
quashed and set aside by this Court in the similar set of facts and
circumstances. Under the circumstances and in view of the subsequent
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there shall not be any bar to
entertain the second application, more particularly, when considering
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in subsequent
decisions, there are least chances of holding the applicants guilty
and/or vicariously liable under Section 141 of the NI Act. Under the
circumstances, to continue the criminal proceedings against the
applicants would be unnecessary harassment to the applicants and
abuse of process of law and the Court. Under the circumstances,
considering the purpose and object of exercising powers under Section
482 of the CrPC, it appears to the Court that this is a fit case to
exercise powers under Section 482 of the CrPC and to quash and set
aside the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants.
Central Bank Of India And Anr vs Saxons Farms And Ors on 7 October, 1999
[6.2] Considering
the above facts and circumstances and considering the decisions of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
(Supra); Harmeet Singh Paintal (Supra); Saxons Farms and Ors.
(Supra), in absence of any allegations and averments in the complaint
that they were partners of the accused No.1 - partnership firm
and that they were in day to day affairs and management of the said
partnership firm, to continue the criminal proceedings against the
applicants would be abuse of process of law and the Court as in
absence of any averments and allegations in the complaint, they
cannot be held vicariously liable under Section 141 of the NI Act for
the offences under Section 138 of the NI Act alleged to have been
committed by the original accused No.1 - partnership firm. At
this stage, it is also required to be noted that other complaints
filed by the very respondent No.2 herein filed against the very
applicants for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act have been
quashed and set aside by this Court in the similar set of facts and
circumstances. Under the circumstances and in view of the subsequent
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there shall not be any bar to
entertain the second application, more particularly, when considering
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in subsequent
decisions, there are least chances of holding the applicants guilty
and/or vicariously liable under Section 141 of the NI Act. Under the
circumstances, to continue the criminal proceedings against the
applicants would be unnecessary harassment to the applicants and
abuse of process of law and the Court. Under the circumstances,
considering the purpose and object of exercising powers under Section
482 of the CrPC, it appears to the Court that this is a fit case to
exercise powers under Section 482 of the CrPC and to quash and set
aside the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants.