9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f petitioner. - CRL.M.C. 2856/2015 and Crl. M.A. 10176/2015 - - - Dated:- 8-10-2018 - MR. R.K. GAUBA J. Petitioner Through: Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Mr. Rudresh Jagpale and Mr. Preet Singh Oberoi, Advocates Respondents Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the State Mr. B.S. Arora, Advocate for R-2 ORDER (ORAL) 1. The petitioner had lodged a criminal case (CC no.81/08) against the third respondent alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) having been committed, the allegations set out in the said complaint pertaining to three cheques, they bearing no.364267 dated 11.10.2007 for ₹ 3,50,000/-; no.364269 dated 13.10.2017 for ₹ 3,36,875/-; and no.364268 dated 15.10.2007 f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 Cr. PC, now on the basis of evidence that had come on record. This application was allowed by the Metropolitan Magistrate by order dated 22.08.2014. The second respondent thus stood summoned as an additional accused. The second respondent however, challenged the said order in the court of Sessions by criminal revision petition (no.74/14). The revisional court accepted the contention of the second respondent and set aside the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate by its order dated 20.02.2015. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the revisional court, the present petition was filed under Section 482 Cr. PC which has been resisted by the second respondent. 5. It needs to be noted that in the criminal complaint, the second respondent was descri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sting the case by examining, at the stage of defence evidence, its senior accounts officer (DW1). 7. The scrutiny of the case by the revisional court for purposes of examining as to whether the Metropolitan Magistrate could have exercised the jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr. PC was apparently mis-directed. It examined the case from the perspective of its maintainability against the third respondent which was not a correct approach. It ignored the settled principle that notice to director of the company was sufficient notice to the company. [see Bilakchand Gyanchand Co. vs. A. Chinnaswami, (1999) 5 SCC 693 ]. In the present case, as already noticed, this is how both the third respondent and the second respondent understood and constr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpugned order of the revisional court is set aside and the order dated 22.08.2014 of the Magistrate is restored. The second respondent company consequently will face the prosecution in the criminal complaint along with the other accused, it having been summoned under Section 319 Cr. PC. 11. By order dated 24.07.2015, the learned predecessor bench had stayed the order dated 20.02.2015 of the revisional court. The court is informed that in pursuance of the said order, the proceedings before the Magistrate have continued wherein after the notice under Section 251 Cr. PC had been issued to the second respondent as well, trial is underway. 12. The petition and the application filed therewith are disposed of in above terms. - - TaxTMI - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
