9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ishonor of the cheque or the notice of demand served in its wake, it cannot be said by any stretch of reasoning that he had knowledge or could have exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence or is guilty of connivance or neglect, there being no material shown to impute consent. For the foregoing reasons, the continuance of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner is found to be an abuse of the judicial process. This court is duty bound to secure the ends of justice by taking measures to prevent such abuse of judicial process. Thus, the petition is allowed. - WP(CRL) 949/2009 - - - Dated:- 18-5-2017 - MR. R.K. GAUBA J. Petitioner Through: Mr. Sandeep P. Agarwal, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Advo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, 1973 (Cr. PC) the petitioner prays for quashing of the above-said criminal complaint case (registered as no.242/1/02) pending in the court of Mr. Jagdish Kumar, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. 3. On 28.07.2009, when the petition was heard for the first time, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he had been dragged in the litigation which had been pending for over seven years even though he was a paid employee of the accused company, he choosing to restrict the prayer at that stage for exemption from personal appearance to be granted. The subsequent proceedings, however, show that on 10.10.2012, he pressed the prayer for quashing of the case against him primarily on the ground that no notice under Section 138 of the N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eased to be a director by 22.01.2002 when the cheque was presented at the bank for encashment, he having resigned from the position of director on 16.10.2001. 6. The averments in (para 7 of) the criminal complaint submitted before the court of the Magistrate, as indeed the evidence adduced in its support, clearly show that it is admitted case of the complainant company (second respondent) that after the cheque had been returned unpaid on 23.01.2002, a notice of demand was issued for and on behalf of the complainant company on 06.02.2002, it being addressed only to the accused company and served at its office address. It is the non-payment of the amount of the cheque in the wake of such demand notice which was pleaded as the cause of acti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. Explanation - For the purposes of this section, debt or other liability means a legally enforceable debt or other liability. 8. A bare reading of the above provision shows that mere issuance of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may be, he shall not be liable for prosecution under this chapter. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where any offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to, any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,- (a) company means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and (b) director , i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mission of the offence or is guilty of connivance or neglect, there being no material shown to impute consent. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the continuance of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner is found to be an abuse of the judicial process. This court is duty bound to secure the ends of justice by taking measures to prevent such abuse of judicial process. 13. Thus, the petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings against the petitioner in Criminal complaint case no.242/1/2002 titled Frick India Ltd. Vs. C.T. Cotton Yard Ltd. and Ors. pending in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate on the complaint of the second respondent are hereby quashed. 14. The petition is disposed of in above terms. - - TaxTMI - TMIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
