Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued soon
Home
2024 (6) TMI 291 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking quashing of the complaint proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Lucknow - doctrine of Vicarious liability - applicant is the Chairman and Managing Director of Wipro Ltd. (Company) and has no interest in any shareholdings or managerial control over the M/s G4S Secure Solutions (India) Private Limited - HELD THAT - This Court finds that the summoning order dated 03.09.2016 and the subsequent bailable warrant issued on 08.02.2017 against the applicant lacks necessary legal and factual foundation. There appears force in the argument of learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant has no administrative control over the functioning of G4S he could not have been summoned for the alleged violation of the Equal Remuneration Act 1976 under which the complaint has been preferred by opposite party No.2. Further on bare reading of complaint dated 26.08.2016 it is apparent that there was no objective material before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Lucknow to formulate an opinion for issuance of summoning order or even to register the complaint. It is thus apparent that the registration of the complaint the issuance of summoning order dated 03.09.2016 and the consequential issuance of bailable warrant vide order dated 08.02.2017 had been done in a mechanical manner sans application of mind whereas it has repeatedly been held that prior to the issuance of a summoning order it is imperative for learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to examine the complaint to ensure that the Directors or other senior officers of the company who have been named in the complaint are vicariously liable for the act complained of - As per the settled law learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Lucknow could not have issued process to the applicant under Section 204 Cr.P.C. and as such the entire complaint proceedings initiated against the applicant as well as summoning order dated 03.09.2016 and the order dated 08.02.2017 issuing bailable warrant against the applicant are without jurisdiction. Whether the applicant was liable for any offence even if the allegations in the complaint are taken on their face value to be correct in entirety? - HELD THAT - The Company is a body incorporated under the Companies Act. Vicarious criminal liability of its Directors and Shareholders would arise provided any provision exists in that behalf in the statute. The Statute must contain provision fixing such a vicarious liability. Even for the said purpose it would be obligatory on the part of the complainant and the investigating agency to make requisite allegations and collect evidence in support thereof which would attract provisions constituting vicarious liability. The applicant s impeccable reputation as an industrialist who upholds the highest standard of corporate governance and his extensive philanthropic contribution should be taken into account. His involvement in the case appears to stem from a misunderstanding or misapplication of legal principles rather than any malafide intent or violation of the Equal Remuneration Act 1976. The orders issued against him lacks substantive ground as the applicant has no direct or indirect control over the alleged matter and in light of the applicant s distinguished career and substantial contributions to society it is evident that the proceedings against him are unfounded and merit reconsideration. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant is allowed in respect of the instant applicant namely-Azim Premji.
|