9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1375X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the stipulated period. It is the non-payment of the amount of the cheque within the statutory period after service of the notice of demand which constitutes the offence that is punishable under the aforementioned provision of law. Going by the averments in the complaint at hand, it not being a case of the complainant that the petitioners were the signatories to the cheques in question, the order summoning them as accused merely on the allegations that they were “the directors” in the company accused at the relevant point of time is bad in law - petition allowed. - CRL.M.C. 674/2016 and Crl.M.A.2921/2016 - - - Dated:- 11-1-2019 - MR. R.K. GAUBA J. Petitioners Through: Mr. Ranvir Singh, Advocate with Mr. Sanjiv Chaudhary, Mr. Nau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ier brought vide Crl.M.C.3788/2012 was repelled by decision dated 31.07.2015. The submissions of the learned counsel on both sides indisputably bring out that the said decision dated 31.07.2015 was rendered against order dated 07.07.2012, which had been earlier passed, albeit on the same criminal complaint, by a court of metropolitan magistrate, which order became non est, after the complaint had been returned for want of jurisdiction in view of the ruling of the Supreme Court reported as Dashrath Rupsingh Rathor vs. State of Maharashtra (2014) 9 SCC 129 . The complaint, after return, has been represented and the order which is impugned here is a fresh order dated 16.09.2015 and so gives a fresh cause of action to the petitioners to rais ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had been received in answer to the demand notice, the complainant would allege in the complaint that it was based on fabricated and vague allegations . 6. The petitioners place reliance, inter alia, on the decisions of the Supreme Court reported as SMS Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Neeta Bhalla, (2005) 8 SCC 89; Gunmala Sales (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Anu Mehta, (2015) 1 SCC 103; and Standard Chartered Bank vs. State of Maharashtra, (2016) 6 SCC 62, to contend that a case for summoning cannot be made out with reference to Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioners on the above mentioned facts and circumstances. 7. Per contra, the respondent places reliance on N.Rangachari vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... armaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (supra); Gunmala Sales (P) Ltd. (supra); and Standard Chartered Bank (supra) were examined in Jwala Devi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and the guiding principles were culled out, thus:- 14. The guiding principles with reference to Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which are now well settled by judicial pronouncements, some of which have been noted above, may be summarised thus :- (i) It is only those persons who are in charge of or responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the time of commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 who can be subjected to criminal action with reference to Section 141; (ii). If the person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the conduct of its business cannot get the complaint quashed by the High Court by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 merely on the ground that no particulars as to his role have been set out in the complaint; and (vii). The person who has been summoned as an accused for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by invoking the provision contained in Section 141 may persuade the High Court to quash the process in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by furnishing some sterling incontrovertible material or acceptable circumstances substantiating his contention that he was not in charge of nor responsible for the conduct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
