Authority: Calcutta High Court
Order Date: 28 August 2026
Case Overview
- Petition: CRR 2620 of 2024, Sanjeeva Shukla (also known as Sanjiv Shukla) vs Aradhana Nirman LLP.
- The petitioner, a director of Credforce Asia Limited, sought quashing of criminal proceedings (Case No. CS/104375 of 2021) pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Calcutta, under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
- The complaint alleged dishonour of a cheque but did not specifically allege that the petitioner was "in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business," a mandatory requirement under Section 141.
- Senior counsel Sandipan Ganguly argued that Section 141 creates vicarious liability only when the complaint contains explicit averments of the director's control and responsibility; mere designation is insufficient.
- The bench relied on several Supreme Court judgments (Ashok Shewakramani v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Siby Thomas v. Somany Ceramics, Rahul Tantia v. State of West Bengal, Pawan Kumar Goel v. State of U.P, Sunil Todi v. State of Gujarat, Sunita Palita v. Panchami Stone Quarry) emphasizing the conjunctive reading of "and" in Section 141(1) and the need for specific allegations.
- The court observed that the complaint was generic, merely stating that the directors managed day‑to‑day affairs, without naming who signed the cheque or detailing any overt act attributable to the petitioner.
Final Outcome
- The revisional application CRR 2620 of 2024 is allowed.
- The criminal proceedings of Case No. CS/104375 of 2021 under Sections 138/141 NI Act are quashed with respect to Sanjeeva Shukla.
- All connected applications, if any, are disposed of; any interim orders are vacated.
- A certified copy of the judgment is to be sent to the trial magistrate for compliance.
Topics: Director liability under NI Act; Criminal revision under Sec 482 CrPC