Delhi High Court quashes four cheque dishonour complaints against SILF President Dr Lalit Bhasin

The Delhi High Court recently quashed four cheque dishonour cases against Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF) President Dr Lalit Bhasin. [Lalit Bhasin v. Pawan Trade Connect Pvt Ltd and Ors].Justice Jyoti Singh observed that there were no allegations that Bhasin was involved in the transaction or the dishonour of the cheques."Since the contents and averments in the complaints are insufficient to attract the provisions under Section 141(1) of the NI Act, the complaints itself are liable to be quashed. Perhaps, it is for this reason that the Respondents have candidly not objected to the petitions being allowed," the Court added..The Court was hearing four petitions by Bhasin seeking quashing of summons issued to him by a metropolitan magistrate under Section 138 (dishonour of cheque for insufficiency etc of funds in the account) of the Negotiable Instruments Act.The complaints were filed by four companies against Leading Hotels Limited (LHL), of which Bhasin was an independent non-executive director.They alleged that LHL had approached them for deposits of different amounts and when the cheques issued in March 2021 towards repayment of the deposits were presented, the same were returned unpaid by the bank with the remark ‘Account Closed’..Bhasin submitted that between March 29, 2013 and June 25, 2021, he had no role or involvement in the day-to-day affairs and management of LHL other than what was assigned to him in his capacity as an independent director..On examining the complaints, the Court found merit in the submission that there was only a general statement in the complaints that Bhasin was involved in the day-to-day affairs of the company. Based on various Supreme Court judgments, the Court reiterated that necessary, specific and unambiguous averments ought to be mentioned in a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, before the person accused of the offence is subjected to criminal prosecution.On the requirements of Section 141, the Court stated,"Section 141 of the NI Act raises a legal fiction where a person although not personally liable for commission of an offence, would be vicariously liable but before a person can be made vicariously liable, strict compliance with statutory requirements is to be insisted.".The Court concluded that the complaints were insufficient to attract the provisions under Section 141(1) of the NI Act against Bhasin and noted that the complainants did not object to the petition being allowed.Accordingly, it allowed the petition and quashed the complaints as well as summoning orders against Bhasin..Bhasin was represented by Senior Advocate Pramod Kumar Dubey, with Advocates Gautam Khazanchi, Suruchi Jaiswal, Anuj Aggarwal, Kaustubh Chauhan and Vaibhav Kapur.The complainants were represented by Advocates Piyush Singh, Akshay Shrivastava and Suryansh Vashisth..[Read Judgment]