TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1459X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccount statement of M/s. J. Parikh and Sons-partnership firm produced at Annexure B with the compilation, it can be seen that both the cheques were issued from the account of the partnership firm. The respondent no. 2-original complainant is served in the present proceedings, however, he has not remained present and controverted the submissions canvassed on behalf of learned advocate for the applicant. When the respondent no. 2-original complainant has not joined the partnership firm as an accused in the impugned complaint, this Court can exercise the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C for quashing and setting aside the impugned complaint - Application allowed. - Criminal Misc. Application (For Quashing & Set Aside Fir/Order) No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d sons only. However, the original complainant has not joined partnership firm as accused and therefore the impugned complaint is required to be quashed and set aside only on this ground. Learned advocate has relied upon the provision contained in Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and also relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2012) 5 SCC 661 : AIR 2012 SC 2795 and the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Ratishbhai D Ramani v. State of Gujarat reported in 2015 (1) GLR 848 and submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court as wel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not remained present and controverted the submissions canvassed on behalf of learned advocate for the applicant. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is further clear that the partnership firm namely J. Parikh and sons is not joined as an accused by the complainant in the impugned complaint. In similar type of facts, this Court after relying upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aneeta Hada (supra) in the case of R.D Ramani (supra) has observed and held as under: 9. Thereafter, learned advocate for the applicant referred to Section 141 of the N.I Act, which deals with the offences committed by the companies. Sec.141 of the N.I Act reads as under: 141. Offences by companies. (1) If the perso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e purposes of this section,- (a) company means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and (b) Director , in relating to a firm, meansj a partner in the firm. The aforesaid explanation to Sec. 141 of the N.I Act is thus explicitly clear while defining company and director . 10. The learned advocate for the applicant has rightly relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Aneeta Hada [(2012) 5 SCC 661 : AIR 2012 SC 2795]. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed in paragraphs Nos. 39, 42 and 43 as under: 39. It is to be borne in mind that Section 141 of the Act is concerned with the offences by the company. It makes the other persons vicariously liable for commission o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entire statute must be first read as a whole, then section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by word. The same principle has been reiterated in Deewan Singh v. Rajendra Prasad Ardevi, (2007) 10 SCC 528 and Sarabjit Rick Singh v. Union Of India., (2008) 2 SCC 417. Applying the doctrine of strict construction, we are of the considered opinion that commission of offence by the company is an express condition precedent to attract the vicarious liability of others. Thus, the words as well as the company appearing in the Section make it absolutely unmistakably clear that when the company can be prosecuted, then only the persons mentioned in the other categories could be vicariously liable for the offence subject to the aver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : AIR 2012 SC 2795]. In the present case, the original complainant has not joined the partnership firm as an accused, and the complaint is filed only against the driver (sic) partner of the firm, and therefore, in view of the decision rendered by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Aneeta Hada [(2012) 5 SCC 661 : AIR 2012 SC 2795], all the aforesaid impugned complaints in the present three cases are not maintainable. Hence, this Court can exercise the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C for quashing and setting aside the impugned complaints. Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Applications are allowed. The criminal complaints, being Criminal Cases No. 283 of 2007, 284 of 2007 and 154 of 2008, pending before the learned Judicial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
