SUSELA PADMAVATHY AMMA versus M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED

Citation: [2024] 3 S.C.R. 647 · Decided: 15-03-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 647 : 2024 INSC 206
Susela Padmavathy Amma 
v. 
M/S Bharti Airtel Limited
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1577-1578 of 2024)
15 March 2024
[B.R. Gavai* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The High Court rejected the prayer for quashing of criminal 
complaints qua the appellant in connection with the offence 
punishable u/s. 138 r/w. s.142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 
1881.
Headnotes
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.138 r/w. s.142 – The 
grievance of the complainant-respondent is that in-spite of 
regular follow-ups and reminders, the company-accused 
no.1 failed and neglected to clear the respondent’s dues – 
On repeated demands, the company furnished respondent 
five cheques – When complainant deposited the cheques, 
they were returned unpaid with reason “payment stopped by 
drawer” – Accordingly, the respondent filed two complaints 
u/s. 190(i)(a) of the Cr.P.C. for offences punishable u/ss. 138 
& 142 of the N.I. Act – Both the complaints were filed against 
three accused persons including appellant herein (accused 
no.3) – Appellant sought to quash criminal proceedings against 
her u/s. 482 Cr.P.C, however the same was dismissed by the 
High Court – Propriety:
Held: On perusal of the complaint, it is clear that the only allegation 
against the present appellant is that she and the accused No.2 
had no intention to pay the dues that they owe to the complainant 
– It is stated that the 2nd accused and the 3rd accused (appellant 
herein) are the Directors, promoters of the 1st accused being 
the Company – It is further averred that the 2nd accused is the 
authorized signatory, who is in-charge of and responsible for the 
day-to-day affairs of the Company, i.e., the 1st accused – It can be 
clearly seen that there is no averment to the effect that the present 
appellant is in-charge of and responsible for the day-to-day affairs 
648
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
of the Company – It is also not the case of the respondent that the 
appellant is either the Managing Director or the Joint Managing 
Director of the Company – The averments made are not sufficient 
to invoke the provisions of s.141 of the N.I. Act qua the appellant 
– Thus, the criminal proceedings in connection with the offence 
punishable u/s. 138 r/w. s.142 of the N.I. Act are quashed and set 
aside qua the present appellant. [Paras 19-22]
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.138, s.141 – Vicarious 
liability of the director:
Held: Merely reproducing the words of the section without a clear 
statement of fact as to how and in what manner a director of the 
company was responsible for the conduct of the business of the 
company, would not ipso facto make the director vicariously liable. 
[Para 12]
Case Law Cited
State of Haryana v. Brij Lal Mittal and others [1998] 3 
SCR 104 : (1998) 5 SCC 343; S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals 
Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla and another [2005] Suppl. 3 SCR 
371 : (2005) 8 SCC 89; Pooja Ravinder Devidasani 
v. State of Maharashtra and another [2014] 14 SCR 
1468 : (2014) 16 SCC 1; State of NCT of Delhi through 
Prosecuting Officer, Insecticides, Government of NCT, 
Delhi v. Rajiv Khurana [2010] 9 SCR 387 : (2010) 
11 SCC 469; Ashoke Mal Bafna v. Upper India Steel 
Manufacturing and Engineering Company Limited (2018) 
14 SCC 202 – relied on.
N.K. Wahi v. Shekhar Singh and others [2007] 3 SCR 
883 : (2007) 9 SCC 481; Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti 
and others v. Pilibhit Pantnagar Beej Ltd. and another 
[2003] Suppl. 6 SCR 344 : (2004) 1 SCC 391; Laxmi 
Dyechem v. State of Gujarat and others [2012] 11 
SCR 466 : (2012) 13 SCC 375; K.K. Ahuja v. V.K. Vora 
and another [2009] 9 SCR 1144 : (2009) 10 SCC 48; 
Lalankumar Singh and others v. State of Maharashtra 
[2022] 14 SCR 573 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1383 – 
referred to.
List of Acts
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 
649
Susela Padmavathy Amma v. M/S Bharti Airtel Limited
List of Keywords
Failure to pay dues; Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, 
etc., of funds in the account; In-charge of company; Authorized 
signatory; Responsible to company; Conduct of company; Criminal 
proceedings; Quashing.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos.1577-
1578 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.04.2022 in CRLOP 
Nos.3470 and 5767 of 2019 of the High Court of Judicature at 
Madras
Appearances for Parties
Manoj V George, Ms. Shilpa Liza George, Km Vignesh Ram, Nasib 
Ma

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.