2022 (7) TMI 83 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - Petitioner submitted that the complaint preferred by the first Respondent/Complainant is not maintainable against the Petitioner herein who is arrayed as Accused No.5 who had resigned as early as on 24.01.2012 and there is no specific averments against the Petitioner/Accused No.5 anywhere in the complaint regarding the overt act of the Petitioner - Section 138 of NI Act - HELD THAT - This Petition cannot be allowed. What had been raised by the Petitioner is treated as valuable defence available to the Petitioner before the trial Court and not to invoke the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. based on the print out taken from the Registrar of Companies which is not an authenticated copy. If this Petition is allowed, it would amount to miscarriage of justice by placing reliance on some copies furnished by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner which is not an authenticated copy.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.3645 of 2015 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis:
The Petitioner, Accused No.5, challenged the complaint alleging that he had resigned from the Company before the alleged offense date. The Petitioner's counsel argued that the complaint lacked specific averments against the Petitioner and failed to provide Ministry of Corporate Affairs' details as required by law. Reference was made to Supreme Court rulings emphasizing the need for such documentation before filing complaints.

The Petitioner's counsel presented Form-32 and email evidence of resignation, emphasizing the Petitioner's disassociation from the alleged offenses. However, the Respondent's counsel contended that the offenses were part of a continuous process, and the Petitioner's status as a Director was confirmed through Ministry of Corporate Affairs' records dated 23.06.2016.

The Respondent's counsel highlighted previous judgments where similar defenses were deemed suitable for trial proceedings rather than quashing under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The Court noted that relying on unauthenticated copies could lead to a miscarriage of justice and that the Petitioner's defense should be raised during trial proceedings.

Ultimately, the Court rejected the Petitioner's arguments, emphasizing that the authenticity of documents and the Petitioner's liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act should be determined during trial proceedings. The Petition was dismissed for lacking merits, following the precedents set in previous cases.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the Criminal Original Petition, emphasizing the need for thorough examination of the Petitioner's liability during trial proceedings rather than invoking extraordinary powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The decision was based on the importance of authenticated documents and the necessity to avoid miscarriages of justice.