Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 825 (GUJ)

S. Shagunthala Devi v. State of Gujarat

2018-07-04

VIPUL M.PANCHOLI

body2018
JUDGMENT Vipul M. Pancholi, J. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code" for the sake of convenience) for quashing and setting aside the complaint being Criminal Case No.215 of 2013 pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Negotiable Instrument Act, Court No.30, Ahmedabad, qua the applicant. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. R.J. Goswami for the applicant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. D.M. Devnani for respondent No.1 and learned advocate Mr.F.B. Brahmbhatt for respondent No.2 - complainant. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Goswami appearing for the applicant accused submitted that respondent No.2 complainant has filed the impugned complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the N.I. Act" for short) against Westlands Chemtex Traders Pvt. Ltd and two others including the present applicant. In the said complaint, the applicant is shown as accused No.3 It is contended that the complainant has though stated in the complaint that the applicant accused is Director of accused No.1 Company and looking after day-to-day affairs of accused No.1 Company, no further averments are made in the impugned complaint that how the applicant accused is in charge of the business of the Company. It is also not stated that at the time of commission of the offence, whether the applicant accused was in charge of business of the Company, or not. It is, therefore, submitted that in absence of specific averments made against the applicant accused, learned Magistrate has committed an error while issuing summons to the applicant accused. 3.1 It is further submitted that while giving verification also, respondent No.2 complainant has not stated that the applicant accused is in charge of day-to-day affairs of the business of accused No.1 Company and how she is connected with the business of the Company. It is further stated that the learned Magistrate has without assigning any reason issued the process against the applicant and the order of issuance of process passed by the learned Magistrate is a non-speaking order. Thus, the learned Magistrate has not examined whether any case is made out against the applicant accused, or not. 3.2 Learned advocate Mr. Goswami, thereafter, submitted that the impugned complaint has been filed through the authorized person. Thus, the learned Magistrate has not examined whether any case is made out against the applicant accused, or not. 3.2 Learned advocate Mr. Goswami, thereafter, submitted that the impugned complaint has been filed through the authorized person. However, the authority letter issued by the complainant to the authorized person was prior to the date of the issuance of the cheque and the complainant has not given specific authority to the authorized officer to file the impugned complaint against the accused. 3.3 Learned advocate, thereafter, referred specific averments made in the memorandum of the application in Ground (K) and submitted that the applicant is not a signatory to the cheque and is a lady Director. No role is assigned to the applicant regarding the conduct of the business of the Company. It is further stated that the husband of the applicant, who is accused No.2, is looking after the affairs of the Company when the offence was committed and the applicant accused was not in charge and, therefore, the proceedings filed against the applicant be quashed and set aside. 3.4 Learned advocate for the applicant has placed reliance upon the following decisions: (1) S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla and Another reported in, (2005) 8 SCC 89 (2) (Dr.) Rajan Sanatkumar Joshi Vs. Rajnikant Govindlal Shah & Another. reported in, (2007) 1 GLH 653 (3) K.K. Ahuja Vs. V.K. Vora and Another reported in, (2009) 10 SCC 48 (4) National Small Industries Corporation Limited Vs. Harmeet Singh Paintlal and Another reported in, (2010) 3 SCC 330 3.5 Relying upon the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, it is contended that if specific allegations are not levelled against the Director that how he was in charge of day-to-day business of the Company, the complaint filed against such Director can be quashed. Relying upon Paragraph-19 of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla and Another (supra), it is contended that merely being a Director of a Company is not sufficient to make the person liable under Section 141 of the N.I. Act. A Director in a Company cannot be deemed to be in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company. Neeta Bhalla and Another (supra), it is contended that merely being a Director of a Company is not sufficient to make the person liable under Section 141 of the N.I. Act. A Director in a Company cannot be deemed to be in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company. The requirement of Section 141 of the N.I. 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 in such cases. It is contended that the aforesaid requirement is not complied with in the impugned complaint and, therefore, the impugned complaint be quashed qua the applicant. 3.6 In Paragraph-15 of the decision rendered by this Court in (Dr.) Rajan Sanatkumar Joshi Vs. Rajnikant Govindlal Shah & Another. (supra), this Court observed that the Trial Court shall carry out proper verification before issuing summons in a criminal case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. While registering the complaint, certain verifications are required. Learned advocate Mr. Goswami submitted that such requirements are not followed in the present case by the learned Magistrate while issuing the summons. 3.7 Learned advocate for the applicant has placed reliance upon the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraphs-22 to 29 of the decision rendered in case of K.K. Ahuja Vs. V.K. Vora and Another (supra) and, more particularly, referred the position under Section 141 of the N.I. Act summarised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraph-27. 3.8 Learned advocate Mr.Goswami has placed reliance upon the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraph-39 of the decision rendered in the case of National Small Industries Corporation Limited Vs. Harmeet Singh Paintlal and Another (supra), and submitted 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 Director in such cases. Harmeet Singh Paintlal and Another (supra), and submitted 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 Director in such cases. 3.9 It is, therefore, urged by the learned advocate for the applicant that as there are no specific averments made against the applicant accused attracting provisions of Section 141 of the N.I. Act, the impugned complaint be quashed qua the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.F.B. Brahmbhatt appearing for respondent No.2 complainant has referred the averments made in Paragraph-4 of the impugned complaint and submitted that sufficient averments are made in the impugned complaint against the applicant accused and, therefore, it is not correct on the part of the applicant to contend that no specific averments are made against the applicant. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering earlier decision rendered in the case of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla and Another (supra), as well as other decisions, in subsequent judgments, considered these aspects and observed that the powers under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised sparingly. 4.1 Learned advocate for respondent No.2 complainant has placed reliance upon the following decisions: (1) Rallis India Limited Vs. Poduru Vidya Bhushan and Others reported in, (2011) 13 SCC 88 (2) Tamil Nadu News Print And Papers Limited Vs. D. Karunakar and Others reported in, (2016) 6 SCC 78 (3) Standard Chartered Bank vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in, (2016) 6 SCC 62 4.2 It is contended by the learned advocate for the complainant, after referring to Paragraphs-2 and 10 to 13 of the decision rendered in the case of Rallis India Limited Vs. Poduru Vidya Bhushan and Others (supra), that in the said case, the averments were made in the complaint that the accused No.1 is a Partnership Firm and accused Nos.2 to 7 are partners thereof. Accused No.3 is signatory of the impugned cheques and all partners are looking after day-to-day affairs of the Company and thus, the liability as raised by them is joint and several. Accused No.3 is signatory of the impugned cheques and all partners are looking after day-to-day affairs of the Company and thus, the liability as raised by them is joint and several. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered such averments and, thereafter, observed that sufficient averments have been made against the respondents of the said case that they were the partners of the Firm at the relevant point of time and were looking after the day-to-day affairs of the Partnership Firm. It is further pointed out by the learned advocate for the complainant that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that under which circumstances, the High Court can exercise the powers to quash the criminal proceedings when such proceedings are related to offence committed by Companies. 4.3 Learned advocate Mr.Brahmbhatt, thereafter, has placed reliance upon the observations made in Paragraphs-9 and 14 of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tamil Nadu News Print And Papers Limited Vs. D. Karunakar and Others (supra). Lastly, he has placed reliance upon Paragraphs-29 and 30 of the decision rendered in the case of Standard Chartered Bank vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (supra). 4.4 Learned advocate Mr.Brahmbhatt, therefore, urged that when specific averments are made against the applicant accused in the impugned complaint, this Court may not exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code and, therefore, this application be dismissed. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.D.M. Devnani has adopted the submissions canvassed by learned advocate Mr.Brahmbhatt. However, in addition to that, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has specifically referred the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraph-13, 26, 31 to 33 in the case of Standard Chartered Bank vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (supra). Learned additional Public Prosecutor has also urged that this Court may not entertain this application. 6. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material produced on record, the only dispute which is required to be considered in the present case is whether there are sufficient averments made by the complainant in the complaint against the applicant accused so as to attract the provisions contained in Section 138 read with Section 141 of the N.I. Act, or not. 7. For considering such issue, the averments made in Paragraph-4 of the impugned complaint are required to be examined. 7. For considering such issue, the averments made in Paragraph-4 of the impugned complaint are required to be examined. The complainant has specifically stated in Paragraph-4 of the impugned complaint as under: "4. The complainant submits that the accused no.2 is Managing Director and Accused no.3 is Director of accused no.1 Company and looking after day to day affairs of the accused no.1 Company. Therefore, accused no.2 and 3 are also deemed to be guilty of the offence u/s. 138 of the act and, therefore, he is liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Further, it is submitted that the said offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of the accused and is attributable to the neglect on the part of the accused and therefore, they are also deemed to be guilty of that offence and are liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly under the provisions of law." 8. Thus, from the aforesaid averments, it is clear that the complainant has stated that accused No.3 (applicant herein) is Director of accused No.1 Company and looking after day-to-day affairs of accused No.1 Company. It is further stated that therefore, accused Nos.2 and 3 are also deemed to be guilty of offence under Section 138 of the Act. It is further alleged that the offence has been committed with the consent and connivance with the accused and is attributable to the neglect on the part of the accused, therefore, they are deemed to be guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. 9. At this stage, the provisions contained in Section 141 of the N.I. Act are required to be considered. Section 141 of the N.I. Act provides as under: "141 Offences by companies. 9. At this stage, the provisions contained in Section 141 of the N.I. Act are required to be considered. Section 141 of the N.I. Act provides as under: "141 Offences by companies. (1) If the person committing an offence under section 138 is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this subsection shall render any person liable to punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge, or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence: 22 [Provided further that where a person is nominated as a Director of a company by virtue of his holding any office or employment in the Central Government or State Government or a financial corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, he shall not be liable for prosecution under this Chapter. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), where any offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to, any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation. For the purposes of this section, (a) "company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and (b) "director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm." 10. In the case of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla and Another (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has answered the questions posed in the reference in Paragraph-19 as under: "19. In the case of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla and Another (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has answered the questions posed in the reference in Paragraph-19 as under: "19. In view of the above discussion, our answers to the questions posed in the reference are as under: (a) It is necessary to specifically aver in a complaint under Section 141 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 and has to be made in a complaint. Without this averment being made in a complaint, the requirements of Section 141 cannot be said to be satisfied. (b) The answer to the question posed in sub-para (b) has to be in the negative. Merely being a director of a company is not sufficient to make the person liable under Section 141 of the Act. A director in a company cannot be deemed to be in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. The requirement of Section 141 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. (c) The answer to Question (c) has to be in the affirmative. The question notes that the managing director or joint managing director would be admittedly in charge of the company and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. When that is so, holders of such positions in a company become liable under Section 141 of the Act. By virtue of the office they hold as managing director or joint managing director, these persons are in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of the company. Therefore, they get covered under Section 141. So far as the signatory of a cheque which is dishonoured is concerned, he is clearly responsible for the incriminating act and will be covered under sub- section (2) of Section 141." 11. In the case of K.K. Ahuja Vs. Therefore, they get covered under Section 141. So far as the signatory of a cheque which is dishonoured is concerned, he is clearly responsible for the incriminating act and will be covered under sub- section (2) of Section 141." 11. In the case of K.K. Ahuja Vs. V.K. Vora and Another (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarised the position under Section 141 of the N.I. Act in Paragraph-27, which reads as under: "27. The position under Section 141 of the Act can be summarised thus: (i) If the accused is the Managing Director or a Joint Managing Director, it is not necessary to make an averment in the complaint that he is in charge of, and is responsible to the company, for the conduct of the business of the company. It is sufficient if an averment is made that the accused was the Managing Director or Joint Managing Director at the relevant time. This is because the prefix "Managing" to the word "Director" makes it clear that they were in charge of and are responsible to the company, for the conduct of the business of the company. (ii) In the case of a Director or an officer of the company who signed the cheque on behalf of the company, there is no need to make a specific averment that he was in charge of and was responsible to the company, for the conduct of the business of the company or make any specific allegation about consent, connivance or negligence. The very fact that the dishonoured cheque was signed by him on behalf of the company, would give rise to responsibility under sub-section (2) of Section 141. (iii) In the case of a Director, secretary or manager [as defined in Section 2(24) of the Companies Act] or a person referred to in clauses (e) and (f) of Section 5 of the Companies Act, an averment in the complaint that he was in charge of, and was responsible to the company, for the conduct of the business of the company is necessary to bring the case under Section 141(1) of the Act. No further averment would be necessary in the complaint, though some particulars will be desirable. They can also be made liable under Section 141(2) by making necessary averment relating to consent and connivance or negligence, in the complaint, to bring the matter under that sub-section. No further averment would be necessary in the complaint, though some particulars will be desirable. They can also be made liable under Section 141(2) by making necessary averment relating to consent and connivance or negligence, in the complaint, to bring the matter under that sub-section. (iv) Other officers of a company cannot be made liable under sub-section (1) of Section 141. Other officers of a company can be made liable only under sub-section (2) of Section 141, by averring in the complaint their position and duties in the company and their role in regard to the issue and dishonour of the cheque, disclosing consent, connivance or negligence." 12. In the case of National Small Industries Corporation Limited Vs. Harmeet Singh Paintlal and Another (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the decision in the case of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla and Another (supra), laid down certain principles in Paragraph39, which are as under: "39. From the above discussion, the following principles emerge: (i) The primary responsibility is on the complainant to make specific averments as are required under the law in the complaint so as to make the accused vicariously liable. For fastening the criminal liability, there is no presumption that every Director knows about the transaction. (ii) Section 141 does not make all the Directors liable for the offence. The criminal liability can be fastened only on those who, at the time of the commission of the offence, were in charge of and were responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. (iii) Vicarious liability can be inferred against a company registered or incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 only if the requisite statements, which are required to be averred in the complaint/petition, are made so as to make the accused therein vicariously liable for offence committed by the company along with averments in the petition containing that the accused were in charge of and responsible for the business of the company and by virtue of their position they are liable to be proceeded with. (iv) Vicarious liability on the part of a person must be pleaded and proved and not inferred. (v) If the accused is a Managing Director or a Joint managing Director then it is not necessary to make specific averment in the complaint and by virtue of their position they are liable to be proceeded with. (iv) Vicarious liability on the part of a person must be pleaded and proved and not inferred. (v) If the accused is a Managing Director or a Joint managing Director then it is not necessary to make specific averment in the complaint and by virtue of their position they are liable to be proceeded with. (vi) If the accused is a Director or an officer of a company who signed the cheques on behalf of the company then also it is not necessary to make specific averment in the complaint. (vii) 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." 13. At this stage, it is required to be noted that after the aforesaid decisions are rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rallis India Limited Vs. Poduru Vidya Bhushan and Others (supra), after considering the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla and Another (supra), has observed and held in Paragraphs2, 10 and 13 as under: "2. For the sake of convenience, the facts mentioned in SLP (Crl.) No.1874 of 2008 are taken into consideration. The appellant as the complainant filed a criminal complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar, NOIDA (U.P.) on 23-7-2004, under Sections 138 and 141 of the Act. It was alleged in the said complaint that cheques bearing Nos.382874 and 382875 dated 31-3-2004 for Rs. 15,00,000 each drawn on Union Bank of India, Vijaywada Main Branch were issued by the accused persons. The said cheques, when presented to their banker, were returned as unpaid vide Cheques Return Advices dated 29-5-2004, with the remarks, "Payment stopped by drawer". In the said complaint, the following specific plea is raised by the appellant: "That Accused 1 is a partnership firm and Accused 2 to 7 are partners thereof and Accused 3 is signatory of the impugned cheques and all partners are looking after day-to-day affairs of the accused firm and thus, the liability as raised by them is joint and several." * * * 10. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid averments as found by us in the criminal complaint, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient averments have been made against the respondents that they were the partners of the firm at the relevant point of time and were looking after the day-to-day affairs of the partnership firm. This averment has been specifically mentioned by the appellant in the complaint even though denied by the respondents but the burden of proof that at the relevant point of time they were not the partners, lies specifically on them. This onus is required to be discharged by them by leading evidence and unless it is so proved, in accordance with law, in our opinion, they cannot be discharged of their liability. Consequently, the High Court committed an error in discharging them. Also, at the cost of repetition, by virtue of their own submissions before the High Court (reproduced in para 4 above), the respondents have admitted the fact that the appellant had referred to them in their capacity as partners who were in charge of the affairs of the firm in the initial complaints. The question as to whether or not they were partners in the firm as on 31-3-2004, is one of fact, which has to be established in trial. The initial burden by way of averment in the complaint has been made by the appellant. * * * 13. Before concluding the present discussion, we also take this opportunity to strike a cautionary note with regard to the manner in which the High Courts ought to exercise their power to quash criminal proceedings when such proceeding is related to offences committed by companies. The world of commercial transactions contains numerous unique intricacies, many of which are yet to be statutorily regulated. More particularly, the principle laid down in Section 141 of the Act (which is in pari materia with identical sections in other Acts like the Food Safety and Standards Act, the erstwhile Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, etc. etc.) is susceptible to abuse by unscrupulous companies to the detriment of unsuspecting third parties." 14. Similarly, in the case of Tamil Nadu News Print And Papers Limited Vs. etc.) is susceptible to abuse by unscrupulous companies to the detriment of unsuspecting third parties." 14. Similarly, in the case of Tamil Nadu News Print And Papers Limited Vs. D. Karunakar and Others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when averments are clearly indicating that the accused was acting as a Director of the Company and was in charge of affairs of the Company, proceedings cannot be quashed. In the said case, the complaint clearly contained that the accused were responsible for dayto-day business of the Company and, therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in not considering the said pleading and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, quashed the order passed by the High Court and observed in Paragraphs-9 and 14 as under: "9. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the complaint, an averment has been made to the effect that all the accused were Directors and in charge of dayto-day business of Accused 1 Company and therefore, they are liable to be punished under the provisions of Section 138 of the Act. * * * * * * * * * 14. Upon perusal of the complaint, we find that an averment has been made to the effect that Accused 3 to 10 were, in fact, in charge of the day-to-day business of Accused 1 Company." 15. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in the case of Standard Chartered Bank vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (supra), once again considered the decisions rendered in the case of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla and Another (supra) and in the case of Gunmala Sales (P) Ltd. v. Anu Mehta reported in, (2015) 1 SCC 103 and observed in Paragraphs-26, 29, 30 and 31 as under: "26. In Gunmala Sales (P) Ltd. the Court was concerned with Directors who issued the cheques. This authority, as we notice, has to be appositely understood. The two-Judge Bench referred to S.M.S Pharma I and other earlier decisions, and came to hold that : [Gunmala Sales (P) Ltd. case, SCC pp. 124-25, paras 30- 31] "30. In Gunmala Sales (P) Ltd. the Court was concerned with Directors who issued the cheques. This authority, as we notice, has to be appositely understood. The two-Judge Bench referred to S.M.S Pharma I and other earlier decisions, and came to hold that : [Gunmala Sales (P) Ltd. case, SCC pp. 124-25, paras 30- 31] "30. When a petition is filed for quashing the process, in a given case, on an overall reading of the complaint, the High Court may find that the basic averment is sufficient, that it makes out a case against the Director; that there is nothing to suggest that the substratum of the allegation against the Director is destroyed rendering the basic averment insufficient; and that since offence is made out against him, his further role can be brought out in the trial. In another case, the High Court may quash the complaint despite the basic averment. It may come across some unimpeachable evidence or acceptable circumstances which may in its opinion lead to a conclusion that the Director could never have been in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time and therefore making him stand the trial would be an abuse of process of court as no offence is made out against him. 31. When in view of the basic averment process is issued the complaint must proceed against the Directors. But, if any Director wants the process to be quashed by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code on the ground that only a bald averment is made in the complaint and that he is really not concerned with the issuance of the cheque, he must in order to persuade the High Court to quash the process either furnish some sterling incontrovertible material or acceptable circumstances to substantiate his contention. He must take out a case that making him stand the trial would be an abuse of process of court. He cannot get the complaint quashed merely on the ground that apart from the basic averment no particulars are given in the complaint about his role, because ordinarily the basic averment would be sufficient to send him to trial and it could be argued that his further role could be brought out in the trial. Quashing of a complaint is a serious matter. Complaint cannot be quashed for the asking. Quashing of a complaint is a serious matter. Complaint cannot be quashed for the asking. For quashing of a complaint, it must be shown that no offence is made out at all against the Director." 30. We have referred to these decisions as they explicitly state the development of law and also lay down the duty of the High Court while exercising the power of quashing regard being had to the averments made in the complaint petition to attract the vicarious liability of the persons responsible under Section 141 of the Act. 31. Now, is the time to scan the complaint. Mr.Divan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant bank, has drawn our attention to Paras 2, 4 and 10 of the complaint petition. They read as follows: "2. I further say that I know the accused above named. Accused 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered address mentioned in the cause-title. Accused 2 to 7 are the Chairman, Managing Director, Executive Director and whole-time Director and authorised signatories of Accused 1, respectively. As such being the Chairman, Managing Director, Executive Director and whole-time Director were and are the persons responsible and in charge of day-to-day business of Accused 1 viz. When the offence was committed. Accused 6 and 7 being signatories of the cheque are aware of the transaction and therefore Accused 2 to 7 are liable to be prosecuted jointly and severally for having consented and/or connived in the commission of present offence in their capacity as the Chairman, Managing Director, Executive Director, whole-time Director and authorized signatories of Accused 1, further the offence is attributable of Accused 2 to 7 on account of their neglect to ensure and make adequate arrangements to honour the cheque issued by Accused 1 and further on account of the neglect of Accused 1 to 7 to comply with the requisition made in the demand notice issued under the provisions of Section 138(c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act within the stipulated period. The accused are therefore liable to be proceeded. * * * 4. I say that Accused 1 through Accused 2 and 3 approached the complainant bank at its branch situated at Mumbai for a shortterm loan facility for a sum of Rs. 200 crores to meet the expenditure of four ORV vessels being built at ABG Shipyard. The accused are therefore liable to be proceeded. * * * 4. I say that Accused 1 through Accused 2 and 3 approached the complainant bank at its branch situated at Mumbai for a shortterm loan facility for a sum of Rs. 200 crores to meet the expenditure of four ORV vessels being built at ABG Shipyard. After verifying the documents submitted the complainant Bank vide its sanction letter dated 28-4-2012 sanctioned the said facility for the purpose mentioned therein. The said terms and conditions mentioned in the sanction letter dated 28-4-2012 were duly accepted by Accused 1 by signing the same. Accused 1 also agreed to pay interest at the negotiated rate by the complainant Bank. Hereto annexed the marked as Ext. 'B' is a copy of the said sanction letter dated 28-4-2012. * * * 10. I say that Accused 1 to 7 were aware that the aforesaid cheque would be dishonoured for being "account blocked" and all the accused, in active connivance mischievously and intentionally issued the aforesaid cheques in favour of the complainant Bank." 16. Keeping in view of the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the facts discussed hereinabove are examined, this Court is of the view that there are sufficient averments made by the complainant in the impugned complaint against the applicant accused so as to attract the provisions contained in Section 141 of the N.I. Act. Quashing of a complaint is a serious matter and complaint cannot be quashed for the asking. For quashing of a complaint, it must be shown that no offence is made out at all against the Director. If the applicant accused wants the process to be quashed by filing this application under Section 482 of the Code on the ground that only bald averments are made in the complaint and that she is not concerned with the issuance of cheque, she has to produce sterling material to show the exceptional circumstances for substantiation of her contention. A complaint cannot be quashed merely on the ground that apart from the basic averments, no particulars are given in the complaint about the role played by her. 17. In view of the above, the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the applicant are not required to be accepted. 18. A complaint cannot be quashed merely on the ground that apart from the basic averments, no particulars are given in the complaint about the role played by her. 17. In view of the above, the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the applicant are not required to be accepted. 18. So far as another contention of learned advocate for the applicant that order of issuance of process passed by the learned Magistrate is a non-speaking order and, therefore, the same is required to be quashed, is concerned, it is required to be noted that while issuing process, the learned Magistrate has specifically observed that upon considering the complaint, verification and the documents as well as the averments made in the complaint with regard to Section 141 of the Act, prima-facie offence is made out and, therefore, the process is issued. Thus, when the learned Magistrate has considered the relevant material placed before him, the order cannot be quashed on this ground. Therefore, the said contention taken by the learned advocate for the applicant is misconceived. 19. Another contention is raised by learned advocate Mr.Goswami with regard to the authority letter given by the complainant to one Kalpesh R. Thakkar. However, with regard to the same, it is required to be noted that the Partnership Firm has given all the powers in connection with the legal proceedings of the said Partnership Firm and the said person is authorized to do all necessary act pertaining to the legal matters of the Firm. On the basis of such authority letter, when the impugned complaint is filed, it cannot be said that the concerned person was not properly authorized by the complainant Partnership Firm. This contention is also not required to be accepted. At this stage, the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Samrat Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd vs. Dolly George reported in, (2002) 9 SCC 455 is required to be referred to. In paragraph-3 of the said decision, it is held as under: "3. Having heard both sides we find it difficult to support the orders challenged before us. A Company can file a complaint only through human agency. The person who presented the complaint on behalf of the Company claimed that he is the authorised representative of the company. Prima facie, the trial court should have accepted it at the time when a complaint was presented. A Company can file a complaint only through human agency. The person who presented the complaint on behalf of the Company claimed that he is the authorised representative of the company. Prima facie, the trial court should have accepted it at the time when a complaint was presented. If it is a matter of evidence when the accused disputed the authority of the said individual to present the complaint, opportunity should have been given to the complainant to prove the same, but that opportunity need be given only when the trial commences. The dismissal of the complaint at the threshold on the premise that the individual has not produced certified copy of the resolution appears to be too hasty an action. We, therefore, set aside the impugned orders and direct the trial court to proceed with the trial and dispose it off in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 31.01.2000." 20. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case in which, this Court can exercise the powers under Section 482 of the Code, as there is no abuse of process of the Court as contended by the learned advocate for the applicant. Accordingly, the application fails and is dismissed. Rule is discharged. After the judgment is dictated, learned advocate Mr. Goswami requested that this Court has granted stay of proceedings against the applicant on 04.09.2013 and since then, the stay is operating. Therefore, when this Court has dismissed this application, the stay granted earlier be extended for a period of six weeks so that the applicant can approach before the Higher Forum. In the facts and circumstances of the case when the stay is in operation since last more than five years, this Court deems it fit to extend the stay for a period of six weeks from today.