Analysis of Supreme Court Judgement in A. R. Radha Krishna vs. Dasari Deepthi & Ors.

High Court order allowing quashing petition be dismissed in case of no evidence of unimpeachable quality being brought on record to indicate that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the court.

We are of the considered opinion that the High Court was not justified in allowing the quashing petitions by invoking its power under S.482, Cr.P.C. In a case pertaining to an offence under S. 138 and S. 141 of the Act, the law requires that the complaint must contain a specific averment that the Director was in charge of, and responsible for, the conduct of the company’s business at the time when the offence was committed. The High Court, in deciding a quashing petition under S. 482, Cr.P.C., must consider whether the averment made in the complaint is sufficient or if some unimpeachable evidence has been brought on record which leads to the 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. While the role of a Director in a company is ultimately a question of fact, and no fixed formula can be fixed for the same, the High Court must exercise its power under S. 482, Cr.P.C. when it is convinced, from the material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the Court.

A perusal of the record in the present case indicates that the appellant   has   specifically averred in his complaint that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 were actively participating in the day-­to-day affairs of the accused no.1 – company. Further, the accused nos. 2 to 4 (including the respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein) are alleged to be from the same family and running the accused no.1 – company   together.   The   complaint   also   specifies   that   all   the accused, in   active   connivance,   mischievously   and   intentionally issued   the   cheques   in favour of   the   appellant   and   later   issued instructions   to   the   Bank   to   “Stop Payment”.  No evidence   of unimpeachable   quality   has   been   brought   on   record   by   the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to indicate that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the court.

Judgement link : https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/38314/38314_2017_Order_28-Feb-2019.pdf