Authority: High Court at Calcutta

Order Date: 31.08.2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner Sanjeeva Shukla (also styled Sanjiv Shukla), a director of Credforce Asia Limited, versus complainant Natasha Sood. No counsel appeared for the opposite party.
  • Proceedings Challenged: Complaint Case No. 649 of 2021 filed before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Barrackpore, under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
  • Petitioner's Contentions: The revisional application (CRR 2614 of 2024) under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. sought quashing of the criminal proceedings, arguing that the complaint failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 141, which demands a specific averment that the accused was "in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business" at the time of the offence.
  • Legal Arguments Presented:
  • Senior Counsel Sandipan Ganguly highlighted that the complaint merely identified the petitioner as a director without any allegation of his control, responsibility, participation in the cheque transaction, or any overt act attributable to him.
  • Emphasised that Section 141 creates a legal fiction of vicarious liability and must be strictly construed; the conjunctive wording "and" makes both conditions cumulative.
  • Cited Supreme Court judgments: Ashok Shewakramani & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2023), Siby Thomas v. Somany Ceramics Ltd. (2024), Rahul Tantia v. State of West Bengal (2023), Pawan Kumar Goel v. State of U.P. (2022), Sunil Todi & Ors. v. State of Gujarat (2021), Sunita Palita v. M/s. Panchami Stone Quarry (2022), and others, establishing that mere directorship does not satisfy Section 141.
  • Noted that the complaint lacked any specific allegation regarding who signed the cheque, the petitioner’s role in negotiating, authorising, or executing the transaction, or any responsibility for the dishonour.
  • Highlighted that the complainant failed to appear despite service, and the trial court record showed no specific averments linking any director to the offence.
  • Court Observations:
  • Reiterated Supreme Court pronouncements that a complaint must contain clear, unambiguous allegations that a director was "in charge of and responsible for" the business at the relevant time; otherwise, vicarious liability cannot be attached.
  • Confirmed that the petition of complaint contained only generic statements that the directors managed day‑to‑day affairs, without pinpointing any individual’s act or responsibility.
  • Stated that the absence of such specific averments renders the prosecution against the petitioner legally unsustainable and amounts to abuse of process.
  • Cited the principle that Section 138 offences are person‑specific and that the identity of the cheque drawer must be alleged in the complaint.

Final Outcome

  • The revisional application (CRR 2614 of 2024) is allowed.
  • The proceedings of Complaint Case No. 649 of 2021 under Sections 138/141 NI Act, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Barrackpore, are quashed with respect to petitioner Sanjeeva Shukla.
  • All connected applications, if any, are disposed of; any interim orders are vacated.
  • The judgment is to be forwarded to the trial court for necessary compliance, and an urgent certified copy may be supplied upon request.

Topics: Negotiable Instruments Act, Director Liability