Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1656 (RAJ)

Rajat Kumar Tiwari v. State of Rajasthan

2019-05-24

PANKAJ BHANDARI

body2019
JUDGMENT Pankaj Bhandari, J. - Petitioner has preferred this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition for quashing of Complaint No.119/2017 pending before Special Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur and against the order dated 18.05.2017 whereby the Trial Court has taken cognizance against the petitioner. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that cheque in question belongs to Vegas Technology. Vegas Technology has not been made an accused in the complaint nor has the other partner been arrayed as the accused in the complaint. 3. It is contended that as per Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the firm ought to have been made an accused in the case. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on 2012 (2) RCR (Criminal) 854 :( AIR 2012 SC 2795 ) ' Aneeta Hada and Ors. v. Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.' and judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in ' Rajesh Sharma and Ors. v. State of Raj. and Ors., 2017 0 ACD 659 2017 3 RLW Page 2376 (Raj)). 5. I have considered the contentions and have perused the judgment cited by the counsel for the petitioner in ' Aneeta Hada and Ors. v. Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.' (supra), the Apex Court was dealing with the matters pertaining to offence by Companies. The Apex Court observed that applying the doctrine of strict construction, commission of offence by the company is an express condition precedent to attract the vicarious liability of others. 6. From bare perusal of Section 141 N.I. Act, it is apparent that if a person committing an offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 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 business of the company as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence. 7. In ' Rajesh Sharma and Ors. v. State of Raj. and Ors.' (supra) Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that the term ' Company' as provided in Section 141 of N.I. Act includes partnership firms and the firm ought to have been impleaded as an accused. 8. I have perused the complaint. 9. 7. In ' Rajesh Sharma and Ors. v. State of Raj. and Ors.' (supra) Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that the term ' Company' as provided in Section 141 of N.I. Act includes partnership firms and the firm ought to have been impleaded as an accused. 8. I have perused the complaint. 9. In the complaint it is specifically mentioned by the complainant that the accused showing his personal necessity took a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Only) from the complainant for a period of two months and in discharge of the payment gave a cheque of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Only) of his firm. There is no allegation in the complaint that offence has been committed by the firm. 10. In view of the above, judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioner do not have any applicability to the facts of this case. Since complainant has mentioned that amount was given on loan to the petitioner, there was no necessity to implead the firm or other partner as an accused in the case. 11. No ground is made out for quashing of the complaint. 12. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is accordingly dismissed. Stay application stands disposed.