Raj Pal Kapil v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr
(2014) 133 AIC 671
In the High Court of Himachal Pradesh
Cr.MMO 75/2013
Before Justice Surinder Singh
Decided on July 17, 2013

Relevancy of the case: Interpretation of Section 85 of the Information Technology Act, 2000

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 85)
• The Constitution of India, 1950 (Article 227)
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 156(3), 482)
• The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Section 138, 141)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 419, 420, 511)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The petitioner is an employee of Strain Brain. He received three lakh rupees from respondents to provide them with a job abroad and arrange their passports.
• The petitioner failed in fulfilling his promise. Therefore, respondents demanded the money back.
• The petitioner issued three cheques in the capacity of the authorised signatory of Swiftron Courier and Cargo Ltd. Cheques got dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account.
• Respondents filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioner without making the company an accused. The court issued a summon order to the petitioner. They also filed a first information report on the ground of cheating.
• The present petition seeks to quash the complaint.

Opinion of the Ben

• The court relied on Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited to interpret Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In the absence of a legal bar, it is necessary to make the company an accused for prosecuting the petitioner.
• The same interpretation applies to Section 85 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
• The court quashed the complaint, summons order and pending applications.

Final Decision

• The court allowed the petition and quashed the complaint, summons order, and pending applications.