Authority: High Court of Bombay at Goa

Order Date: 28 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Kiran Koppula (aged 47, resident of Mumbai, office in Pune) filed Criminal Writ Petitions Nos. 82‑85 of 2025 seeking quashment of Criminal Case Nos. OA/NIA/398/2022/D, OA/NIA/399/2022/D, OA/NIA/46/2023/D and OA/NIA/47/2023/D issued by the Judicial Magistrate Junior Division ‘D’ Court, Panaji, for alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
  • Respondents: 1) M/S Piggy Ventures Private Limited (directors Jose Ryan Agnelo Gomes Prazeres and Jose Ralph De Fatima Gomes Prazeres); 2) DA Urban Nomads Community Pvt. Ltd.; 3) Navin Kishore; 4) Nakul Singh Purohit. The two companies entered into a share‑purchase agreement dated 1 June 2021 for acquisition of 80 % of Piggy Ventures by DA Urban Nomads and the two individuals. Final term‑sheet signed 7 May 2021 fixed purchase price at Rs 80,00,000, with Rs 3,00,000 paid on signing and the balance payable in 11 instalments.
  • Cheques issued under the instalment schedule:

| Date | Return Memo | Amount | Cheque No. | OA No. | Complaint Filed On | WPCR No. |

| 25‑06‑2022 | 23‑09‑2022 | 10,00,000 | 000118 | OA/398/2022 | 04‑11‑2022 | 82/2025 |

| 22‑09‑2022 | 23‑09‑2022 | 10,00,000 | 000119 | OA/399/2022 | 04‑11‑2022 | 83/2025 |

| 30‑10‑2022 | 02‑01‑2023 | 10,00,000 | 000120 | OA/46/2023 | 15‑02‑2023 | 84/2025 |

| 30‑11‑2022 | 02‑01‑2023 | 15,00,000 | 000121 | OA/47/2023 | 15‑02‑2023 | 85/2025 |

  • All four cheques were returned for “insufficient funds”. Piggy Ventures served a legal notice demanding payment; the accused failed to pay, leading to a complaint under Section 138 NI Act.
  • Kiran Koppula was appointed Additional Director of DA Urban Nomads on 17‑03‑2022 and Director on 30‑09‑2022, holding these positions until 27‑06‑2023. He was not a signatory to the agreement or any of the cheques and performed no executive function for the company.
  • Counsel for petitioner (Ajay Menon) argued that Section 141 requires specific averments that a director was “in charge of and responsible for” the business at the time of the offence, which the complaint lacked. He cited Supreme Court judgments (Matkar, Taparia, Mehta) emphasizing that liability cannot be attached without such averments.
  • Counsel for respondent‑1 (Amogh Prabhudessai) contended that petitioner received Rs 15,00,000 under the transaction, held a key managerial position, and that the complaint sufficiently implicated the directors. He relied on other Supreme Court precedents (Parasrampuriya, Rangachari, HDFC Bank).

Legal Analysis

  • The Court examined Section 141(1) and (2) of the NI Act, noting that liability attaches only if the accused was “in charge of, and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business” at the time of the offence, or if consent/connivance is proved.
  • Referring to Hitesh Verma v. Health Care at Home India Pvt. Ltd. (2025), the Court reiterated that both ingredients of sub‑section (1) must be pleaded; absence of a specific allegation that the petitioner was in charge defeats vicarious liability.
  • The Court reiterated principles from Kamalkishor Shrigopal Taparia (2025) that liability is limited to directors who were in charge and responsible, and that mere directorship without such averments is insufficient.
  • The complaint was silent on petitioner’s role, his appointment dates, and any responsibility for the cheques, thereby failing the requirement of Section 141.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petitions (Nos. 82‑85 of 2025) are allowed.
  • The rule is made absolute, quashing the process issuance and the criminal cases OA/NIA/398/2022/D, OA/NIA/399/2022/D, OA/NIA/46/2023/D and OA/NIA/47/2023/D.
  • No further proceedings shall be taken against petitioner Kiran Koppula under Section 138 NI Act.

Topics: Cheque Bounce, Section 138 NI Act, Director Liability