9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of criminal complaints and summoning orders. 2. Responsibility and liability of directors under Section 138 and Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. Validity of resignation documents and their effect on liability. Summary: Issue 1: Quashing of Criminal Complaints and Summoning Orders The petitions sought the quashing of criminal complaint cases and summoning orders issued by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurgaon. The cases involved were C.R.M.-M-3975-2013, C.R.M.-M-3976-2013, C.R.M.-M-15903-2013, and C.R.M.-M-15904-2013. The court decided to dispose of all four petitions through a single judgment as they involved the same parties and identical questions of law. Issue 2: Responsibility and Liability of Directors u/s 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act The court examined whether specific averments were made in the complaints that the petitioners were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. It was noted that paragraph 3 of the complaint stated that accused No. 2 to 7 were responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company, which prima facie made out an offense u/s 138 of the Act against the petitioners. The court referenced the case of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals v. Neeta Bhalla, emphasizing that liability arises from conduct, act, or omission, not merely from holding a position. The court also cited K.K. Ahuja v. V.K. Vora & another, which clarified the necessity of specific averments in the complaint to hold directors liable. Issue 3: Validity of Resignation Documents and Their Effect on Liability The petitioners argued that they had resigned from the company before the issuance of the cheques. However, the court held that the genuineness and effect of the resignation documents would be determined during the trial. The court noted that the petitioners did not respond to the notice of demand, and there were prima facie allegations against them in the complaints. The court referenced Harshendra Kumar D. v. Rebatilata Koley, stating that public documents or materials beyond suspicion could be considered at the prima facie stage, but the validity of the resignation documents required a full trial. Conclusion The court found no merit in the petitions and dismissed C.R.M.-M-3975-2013, C.R.M.-M-3976-2013, C.R.M.-M-15903-2013, and C.R.M.-M-15904-2013. The petitioners were allowed to raise their defenses during the trial. The court emphasized that disputed questions of fact should be resolved through evidence in the trial court, not at the initial stage u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
|
