9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 1077X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Negotiable Instruments Act - Further, the petitioner/A3 is no more Director of the A1 company on the date of cheque i.e., on 07.09.2012, since she resigned from the company on 10.10.2011. In support of the contention, the petitioner produced Form 32 to that effect, which is at page No.6 of the typed set. The petitioner is a lady. Petition allowed. - Crl.O.P.Nos.9852 & 9853 of 2015 and Crl.M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 19-8-2020 - THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR For the Petitioner : Mr.M.Vignesh for Mr.C.S.Saravanan For the Respondent : Mr.A.Ashwin Kumar, Legal Aid Counsel ORDER Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.Nos.690 688 of 2014 pending on the file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the cheque. The complainant sent the copy of the cheques to the petitioner on 17.10.2012, but the accused failed to pay the cheques amount. Hence, the complainant filed complaints, against which the present quash petitions. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the 3rd accused and she is not, incharge of the management and affairs of A1 company. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was not a Director of the A1 company on the date of cheque i.e., on 07.09.2012, since he was resigned from the company on 10.10.2011. In support of the same, the petitioner produced Form 32. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.M.S Pharmaceuticals Limited Versus Neeta Bhalla and another repo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this case, the cheques are dated 07.09.2012, the petitioner/A3 resigned from A1 company on 10.10.2011. The cheque was presented on 10.09.2012 and the same were returned on the same day. Coming to know about the return of the cheque, the petitioner hurriedly resigned from A1 company and pre-dated her resignation and filed Form 32 to escape from the prosecution. 9.The petitioner is one of the Director along with A2. Hence, she cannot now claim that she was was not incharge of the affairs of A1 company. The points agitated by the petitioner are to be decided only during the trial. The petitioner being the Director of the company cannot absolve from the case. Hence, the petition for quashing of the proceedings, is liable to be dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e part of the accused. It was held that no case was made out against the accused who was a partner and the complaint was quashed. The latest in the line is the judgment of this Court in Monaben Ketanbhai Shah v. State of Gujarat [(2004) 7 SCC 15 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1857] . It was observed as under: (SCC p. 17, para 4) 4. It is not necessary to reproduce the language of Section 141 verbatim in the complaint since the complaint is required to be read as a whole. If the substance of the allegations made in the complaint fulfil the requirements of Section 141, the complaint has to proceed and is required to be tried with. It is also true that in construing a complaint a hypertechnical approach should not be adopted so as to quash the same. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laint so as to make the accused vicariously liable. For fastening the criminal liability, there is no presumption that every partner knows about the transaction. The obligation of the appellants to prove that at the time the offence was committed they were not in charge of and were not responsible to the firm for the conduct of the business of the firm, would arise only when first the complainant makes necessary averments in the complaint and establishes that fact. The present case is of total absence of requisite averments in the complaint. 12.This legal principle and position is applicable to the facts of the present case on hand. Hence, this Court finds that there is no factual averments to show how the petitioner is responsible fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
