2015 (12) TMI 1293 - HC - Indian Laws

Complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Held that - In the instant case, it is submitted that evidence has already been concluded before the trial Court and the case was at the stage of recording statements of petitioner and other co-accused named in the complaint, under Section 313 Cr.P.C. There is specific averment in the complaint that on the representation of the petitioner and other coaccused, the MOU was signed. The mere fact that the cheque issued by respondent No.2 and the MOU signed by respondent No.2 do not bear the signature of petitioner, make out no case for quashing of the complaint and summoning order at this stage when the evidence of complainant has already been concluded. When the entire evidence before the trial Court is complete, it is not appropriate to record finding on the contention of petitioner that he was not the Director of the company at the time of issuance of cheque or was not responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. All these facts will be evaluated by the trial Court on the basis of evidence on record. The petitioner has not come up with any explanation as to what prevented him from filing the revision against the order dated 06.10.2012 vide which he was summoned to face the trial and against the order vide which he was served with notice of accusation. He preferred this petition at a very belated stage when the evidence had already been concluded by the complainant. Keeping all the above facts and circumstances in view, this petition has no merits and is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that nothing contained in this order shall have any bearing on the merits of the complaint or shall be taken as expression of opinion of this Court on any issue to be dealt with and decided by the trial Court.

Summary

Issues:
Quashing of complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and summoning order passed by Judicial Magistrate.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of Complaint and Summoning Order:
The petitioner sought quashing of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the summoning order issued by the Judicial Magistrate. The complaint was filed against the petitioner and other respondents for dishonoring cheques related to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) executed between the parties. The petitioner argued that he was not a signatory to the cheques, not responsible for the company's conduct, and had resigned from directorship before the MOU. However, the complainant contended that the petitioner continued as a director on the Registrar of Companies' website, challenging the authenticity of the resignation documents submitted by the petitioner.

2. Resignation and Directorship Dispute:
The petitioner presented evidence of resignation as a director, but the complainant disputed the validity of the resignation, claiming it was not communicated to the Registrar of Companies. The complainant alleged that the petitioner was still a director as per official records, contradicting the petitioner's claim of resignation. The complainant argued that the petitioner's resignation was not made public, and no intimation was provided to the Registrar of Companies, thereby questioning the legality of the resignation.

3. Legal Precedents and Arguments:
The petitioner relied on legal precedents to support the contention that it was the duty of the Company Secretary, not individual directors, to inform the Registrar of Companies about resignations. However, the complainant emphasized that the evidence had been concluded before the trial court, and the case was at the stage of recording statements under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The complainant argued that the absence of the petitioner's signature on the cheques and MOU did not warrant quashing the complaint and summoning order at that stage.

4. Dismissal of Petition and Trial Court Directions:
The Court dismissed the petition, stating that it lacked merit and was filed at a belated stage after the evidence had been completed by the complainant. The Court clarified that its decision did not impact the merits of the complaint or express an opinion on issues to be determined by the trial court. The trial court was directed to expedite the disposal of the complaint within six months from the date of the order, emphasizing the need for timely resolution of the pending legal matter.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the dispute regarding the quashing of the complaint and summoning order, focusing on the petitioner's resignation as a director and the authenticity of the resignation documents. The Court emphasized the importance of timely legal proceedings and directed the trial court to expedite the resolution of the complaint.