Case: Sharad Kumar Sanghi Vs. Sangita Rane

no allegation against him. In the initial statement made under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., the complainant after narrating the facts, has stated thus : "Sanghi Brothers Limited run by Mr. Sharad Sanghi committed cheating with the Applicant by delivering accidented vehicle in place of a new one and caused gross financial loss. Applicant is operating the vehicle after borrowing loan from Bank and the vehicle is not worth operating at present due to said defects. I have filed the Photostat copies of the concerning documents in the case." 9. The allegations which find place against the Managing Director in his personal capacity, as we notice, are absolutely vague. When a complainant intends to proceed against the Managing Director or any officer of a company, it is essential to make requisite allegation to constitute the vicarious liability. In Maksud Sajyad vs. State of Gujarat ((2008) 5 SCC 668 ), it has been held, thus: "Where a jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint petition filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind. The Penal Code does not contain any provision for attaching vicarious liability on the part of the Managing Director or the Directors of the Company when the accused is the Company. The learned Magistrate failed to pose unto himself the correct question viz. as to whether the complaint petition, even if given face value and taken to be correct in its entirety, would lead to the conclusion that the respondents herein were personally liable for any offence. The Bank is a body corporate. Vicarious liability of the Managing Director and Director would arise provided any provision exists in that behalf in the statute. Statutes indisputably must contain provision fixing such vicarious liabilities. Even for the said purpose, it is obligator on the part of the complainant to make requisite allegations which would attract the provisions constituting vicarious liability."In this regard, reference to a three-Judge Bench decision in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla and Another ((2005) 8 SCC 89 ) would be apposite. While dealing with an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Court explaining the duty of a Magistrate while issuing process and his power to dismiss a complaint under Section 203 without even issuing process observed thus:-".... a complaint must contain material to enable the Magistrate to make up his mind for issuing process. If this were not the requirement, consequences could be far-reaching. If a Magistrate had to issue process in every case, the burden of work before the Magistrate as well as the harassment caused to the respondents to whom process is issued would be tremendous. Even Section 204 of the Code starts with the words "if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding".The words "sufficient ground for proceeding" again suggest that ground should be made out in the complaint for proceeding against the respondent. It is settled law that at the time of issuing of the process the Magistrate is required to see only the allegations in the complaint and where allegations in the complaint or the charge-sheet do not constitute an offence against a person, the complaint is liable to be dismissed." After so stating, the Court analysed Section 141 of the Act and after referring to certain other authorities answered a referent and relevant part of the answer reads as follows:- "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." 10. The same principle has been reiterated in S.K. Alagh v. State of UP ((2008) 5 SCC 662 ); Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. v. Datar Switchgear Ltd. ((2010) 10 SCC 479 ); and GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. India Infoline Ltd. ((2013) 4 SCC 505 ). 11. In the case at hand as the complainants initial statement would reflect, the allegations are against the company, but the company has not been made arrayed as a party. Therefore, the allegations have to be restricted to the Managing Director. As we have noted earlier, allegations are vague and in fact, principally the allegations are against the company. There is no specific allegation against the Managing Director. When a company has not been arrayed as a party, no proceeding can be initiated against it even where vicarious liability is fastened on certain statutes. It has been so held by a three-Judge Bench in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited ((2012) 5 SCC 661 ) in the context of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.12. At this juncture, it is interesting to note, as we have stated earlier, that the learned Magistrate while passing the order dated 22.10.2001, had opined, thus :- "It appears prima-facie from the complaint filed by the complainant, documents, evidence and arguments that accused company has committed cheating with the complaint by delivering old and accidented vehicle to her at the cost of a new truck. Accordingly, prima-facie sufficient grounds exist for registration of a complaint against the accused U/s. 420 of I.P.C. and is accordingly registered." 13. When the company has not been arraigned as an accused, such an order could not have been passed. We have said so for the sake of comp 4leteness. In the ultimate analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court should have been well advised to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant and that having not been done, the order is sensitively vulnerable and accordingly we set aside the same and quash the criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent against the appellant.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]11. In the case at hand as the complainants initial statement would reflect, the allegations are against the company, but the company has not been made arrayed as a party. Therefore, the allegations have to be restricted to the Managing Director. As we have noted earlier, allegations are vague and in fact, principally the allegations are against the company. There is no specific allegation against the Managing Director. When a company has not been arrayed as a party, no proceeding can be initiated against it even where vicarious liability is fastened on certain statutes. It has been so held by aBench in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited ((2012) 5 SCC 661 ) in the context of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.12. At this juncture, it is interesting to note, as we have stated earlier, that the learned Magistrate while passing the order dated 22.10.2001, had opined, thusie from the complaint filed by the complainant, documents, evidence and arguments that accused company has committed cheating with the complaint by delivering old and accidented vehicle to her at the cost of a new truck. Accordingly,sufficient grounds exist for registration of a complaint against the accused U/s. 420 of I.P.C. and is accordingly registered.When the company has not been arraigned as an accused, such an order could not have been passed. We have said so for the sake of comp 4leteness. In the ultimate analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court should have been well advised to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant and that having not been done, the order is sensitively vulnerable and accordingly we set aside the same and quash the criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent against the appellant.