Case: Jayantilal Vashrambhai Modia &amp; Another Vs. M/s. Orient Bell Ltd. &amp; Others

2. The High Court dismissed the applications of the appellants filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of the summoning order in Criminal Complaint No. 408/1 of 2012 on the ground that the appellant is a mere Director of accused Company, who cannot be prosecuted as no vicarious liability can be fastened with the appellant.3. It is submitted that the High Court passed the said order, without referring to the Agreement dated 13.08.2010 annexed to the petition disclosing that the affairs of the Company was managed by one Mr. Anil D. Kaneria, respondent accused No. 2 in the matter in question.

Court's reasoning:
5. We find that in the complaint, the appellant has not made a specific statement that the appellant as a Director and arrayed as an accused wasand was responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of the Company in itsaffairs.6. In view of that, we do not find that the complaint which has been lodged is in consonance with the requirements made under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the law laid down by this court in the above judgment.