by Shivendra Pratap Singh | Jun 27, 2025 | Criminal Matter
Can I lodge a complaint against the managing director and chairman of the company in a cheque bounce case? The managing director and chairman have issued a cheque after settlement of dues. I have huge financial dues upon the company. In order to settle the outstanding the company organised a meeting. In that meeting the managing director and chairman of the company agreed to pay dues in three equal installments. In the first installment the company will pay 25% dues and the rest of the dues will pay in two installments as 35% & 40% respectively. I received a check for the first installment. When I deposited that cheque for encashment it had bounced. A demand notice was sent but it is unanswered. Now I am going to lodge a complaint under section 138 NI Act. I want to know whether I can lodge that complaint against the managing director and chairman also.
Asked from: Delhi
The Managing Director is ordinarily vicariously liable for offences committed by the company under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as he is presumed to be in charge of, and responsible for, the conduct of the business of the company.
As far as the Chairman is concerned, his liability under Section 138 NI Act depends on his involvement in the day-to-day affairs of the company. If both the Managing Director and the Chairman are jointly responsible for the company's daily operations, or if the cheque in question bears the signatures of both, then both can be held liable under Section 138.
However, if the Chairman neither signed the cheque nor had any role in the company’s financial management or issuance of the cheque, he cannot be made an accused under Section 138 NI Act merely by virtue of his designation.
In such a scenario, if there is independent evidence indicating that the Chairman induced the complainant to part with money or goods through fraudulent representations, a case for cheating under Section 318 of the BNS may be made out. For initiating proceedings for the offence of cheating, it is not necessary to file a separate complaint. You may array the Chairman as an accused in the same complaint, but only in respect of the offence of cheating, provided the facts support such an allegation.
Accordingly, you are advised to file a single complaint against both persons—against the Managing Director for the offence of dishonour of cheque under Section 138 NI Act as well as cheating, and against the Chairman for the offence of cheating, if the facts and evidence support such a charge.
Related:
by Shivendra Pratap Singh | Jun 27, 2025 | Criminal Matter
Magistrate issued a summon without giving appropriate reason thereof. I have received a summon from the court for the offence of section 323/504/506 IPC. No reason and finding of the court has been mentioned in that summons. In this condition I can say that the court has issued a process without application of mind. My friend says that I can challenge the process before the high court. I contacted an advocate of the High Court and he advised that the issue of process cannot be challenged on the ground of not stating reason. Please suggest.
Asked from: Uttar Pradesh
It is well settled that it is not mandatory for the Magistrate to pass a detailed reasoned order under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, at the stage of issuing process. This principle has been clearly laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of West Bengal, (2000) 1 SCC 722.
At the stage of issuance of process, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons or make detailed findings. If the Magistrate is satisfied that there exists sufficient ground to proceed against the accused, he may issue process, whether in the form of a summons or a warrant.
Once the complainant succeeds in establishing that a prima facie case exists against the accused, the court may take cognizance of the offence and issue process accordingly. At this stage, the court is expected to consider:
- The form and contents of the complaint,
- The statements of the complainant and witnesses, and
- The evidence adduced in support of the allegations.
If these materials, taken as a whole, prima facie disclose the commission of an offence, the Magistrate is bound to issue process and summon the accused to face trial.
However, the issue of process may be challenged on certain limited grounds, such as:
- That no offence is made out on the basis of the evidence adduced,
- That no prima facie case exists against the accused, or
- That the Magistrate has issued process without proper application of mind or without considering the materials on record.
Importantly, the summoning order cannot be challenged merely on the ground that the Magistrate has not recorded reasons, or that the order lacks detailed findings regarding cognizance. The law does not mandate the Magistrate to elaborate on these aspects at the stage of process issuance under Section 204 CrPC. Magistrate issued a summon without giving appropriate reason is in consonance of the provision of crpc.
Related advice in criminal law:
by Shivendra Pratap Singh | Jun 27, 2025 | Criminal Matter
Can I lodge a complaint against a person to whom an FIR was lodged for another offence in 2021. I lodged a first information report against a person who was my employee. He was deputed to clear all goods imported from the United States of America. My company is doing business in electronic goods assembled in the USA. That employee was indulged in false trade and mixed huge goods made in China. When that employee came to the company's knowledge immediately an FIR was lodged against him. That case is pending. Recently I came to know that he had manipulated the balance sheets of the company and made several false entries. He had manipulated the funds of the company and utilized it to establish his own company in China. I wanted to lodge a fresh complaint against him but my advocate says that there should not be more than one FIR in the same offence or the offence committed in the same transaction.
Asked from: Tamil Nadu
The employee in question has committed the offence of dishonest misappropriation of property during the period of his employment under you. You have already initiated a criminal case for the offence of cheating, which is a separate and distinct offence and bears no direct connection with the offence of misappropriation, except for the fact that both were committed while he was in your service.
In light of this, you are legally entitled to lodge a fresh complaint in respect of the offence of dishonest misappropriation of property. It is a settled legal principle that when a person commits multiple offences in the course of the same transaction or within a period of one year, he may be charged with and tried for all such offences jointly, provided those offences have been alleged in the same complaint or FIR.
However, this principle does not apply when the offences were not known or disclosed at the time of the original complaint. In your case, the offence of misappropriation came to your knowledge only recently, approximately four years after the earlier FIR was lodged. Since the two offences are distinct in nature and not part of the same complaint, you are well within your rights to initiate a separate criminal proceeding.
While filing the new complaint, it is essential that you explain the delay in lodging it. You should specifically mention in your complaint that you became aware of the said offence only recently, and provide any relevant circumstances or documentation that supports this assertion.
This explanation will help satisfy the court that the delay was reasonable and justified, and that you acted promptly upon discovering the offence. Therefore, you can lodge a complaint against a person to whom an FIR was lodged for another offence.
Related:
by Shivendra Pratap Singh | Jun 24, 2025 | Criminal Matter
Complainant sought separate trial after stay order passed by the high court against two co-accused. The complainant is frustrated by the order of the honourable high court which has stayed the proceedings against the co-accused because of bald and omnibus allegation made against them. Now the case has been stayed and no proceedings are going on. An application has moved by the counsel of complainant.
She prayed to separate the file of two co-accused and carry on trial against the husband. No charge has been framed by the magistrate in the matter. Now the application has been moved with the intention to delay the process and pressurise the accused.
I want to know whether the trial court can separate the file and frame charges against me. My parents case has been stayed by the interim order of the high court. If charges have framed by the magistrate then what is the possibility of trial and what would be the chance of the parents to face the trial?
Asked from: Madhya Pradesh
The Hon’ble High Court has stayed the proceedings against the two co-accused until the next date of hearing. The said order is interim in nature and does not constitute a final adjudication of the matter. The opposite party retains the right to appear before the High Court to object to the interim stay or to file an application for vacation of the stay order.
In these circumstances, it cannot be contended that the interim order of the High Court has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The complainant bears the burden of establishing before the Magistrate that such an order has caused prejudice or a miscarriage of justice due to the inability to separate the case file or initiate a separate trial.
As per Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, when there is more than one accused charged with committing the same offence in the course of the same transaction, they shall ordinarily be charged and tried jointly, unless such a joint trial is likely to cause a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, unless the complainant can establish that a joint trial would be unjust, separate trials or separation of case files is not permissible.
The interim order of the High Court is temporary and does not, by itself, lead to any judicial delay or procedural irregularity. Hence, there is no legal basis for the separation of the file or for conducting a separate trial against one of the accused at this stage. Complainant has no legal ground to sought separate trial after stay order passed by the high court.
Related: Victim has the right to oppose bail application of accused
by Shivendra Pratap Singh | Jun 22, 2025 | Property Dispute
How to transfer my spinning factory to another person for ten years. He is willing to operate my factory because I want to settle abroad. The factory is situated on my land and it is debt free. I have installed all necessary equipment for making synthetic yarn. A few of them have been imported from Italy. He is willing to pay pagdi in advance and also to a fixed amount each year. I want to keep ownership of my land and transfer only machinery and equipment to him. In this situation what would be the best mode to transfer.
Asked from: Uttar Pradesh
You should execute the transfer through a registered lease agreement, duly attested by two witnesses. The factory in question constitutes immovable property, as its equipment and machinery are permanently affixed to the land. This permanent installation reflects the clear intention of the owner to enjoy the land more beneficially on a long-term basis.
In accordance with the Transfer of Property Act, when the value of the property exceeds one hundred rupees, or the lease is for a term exceeding one year or involves rent exceeding one year’s value, the lease must be executed by a registered instrument.
The transfer of the right to operate the spinning factory located on the land constitutes the transfer of an interest in immovable property, as it amounts to yielding benefits from that immovable property. Therefore, any oral agreement or a notarised deed executed on a ₹100 stamp paper will not create any valid or enforceable right in favour of the transferee.
To ensure legal validity, the lease agreement must be:
- Executed as a registered deed,
- Properly stamped in accordance with the applicable Stamp Act, and
- Attested by at least two witnesses.
Failing to follow this process will render the transfer legally ineffective and may expose you to unnecessary disputes in the future. The said mode should be adopted to transfer the spinning factory to another person.
Related:
