2022 (1) TMI 1293 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - resignation of petitioner much prior to the issuance of alleged cheque - vicarious liability of the directors - HELD THAT - As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the documents themselves are disputed and merely because the submissions are made before this Court the same cannot be relied upon without proving the authentication as required under law. The documents that have to be proved before the Court for reliance. Therefore the contention that the petitioner has resigned much prior to the issuance of alleged cheque dated 07.07.2015 or not to be seen only in trial Court. Further in the very resignation letter he has stated that he is the Executive Chairman of the first accused/Company at the earlier point of time. Therefore the facts which are disputed by the other side cannot be dealt with by this Court as it is for the petitioner to establish the same before the trial Court. This Court is of the view that the petitioner is one of the Executive Directors in the affairs of the Company. The respondent-Bank pleaded that the cash credit facility has been extended from time to time to the accused persons who are in-charge of the Company. Merely on the ground that in the pleadings with regard to role played by each of the Directors is not stated as strictly as required under law the entire proceedings cannot be quashed. This Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Petition to quash proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The complaint alleges that the accused, including the Managing Director and Directors of a Company, availed financial credit facilities from a bank, resulting in a dishonored cheque. The bank initiated prosecution under Sections 138 and 142 of the Act.

2. The petitioner, one of the accused Directors, argued that he had resigned from the Company before the cheque issuance and cannot be prosecuted. He cited the Gujarat High Court and Supreme Court judgments in support.

3. The respondent contended that the resignation timing is disputed, and documents submitted lack authentication. The petitioner's alleged resignation letter conflicts with the filing date of Form DIR-12, indicating his position during the cheque dishonor.

4. The Court noted the disputed documents and the need for authentication in legal proceedings. It found the petitioner to be an Executive Director involved in the Company's affairs, emphasizing that the trial court should determine the disputed facts.

5. The Court held that the petitioner's role in the Company and the cash credit facility extension must be established during the trial. Insufficient pleading strictness does not warrant quashing the proceedings, leaving the matter for trial court determination.

6. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Criminal Original Petition, allowing the trial court to proceed with the case expeditiously. The petitioner's personal appearance before the trial court was dispensed with for trial continuation.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments, legal precedents cited, disputed facts, and the Court's decision to dismiss the petition, emphasizing the need for trial court determination of the disputed issues.