2013 (1) TMI 1039 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to rejection of discharge application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

Summary:

Issue 1: Challenge to rejection of discharge application

The petitioner filed M.Cr.C. u/s 482 Cr.P.C. against the order rejecting the discharge application in Criminal Case No. 25920/2009, related to alleged offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act based on dishonoured cheques issued by respondent No. 2 company. The complaint alleged that the cheques were dishonoured on 22-8-2008, notice was given on 12-9-2008, and the complaint was filed when payment was not made within 15 days. The Trial Court rejected the discharge application, leading to the present petition.

Issue 2: Director's liability and statutory notice

The petitioner, not being a Director at the time of cheque issuance or dishonour, argued that he was not given statutory notice and no role was attributed to him in the complaint. The respondent contended that the Trial Court correctly rejected the discharge application. The petitioner submitted Form 32 showing his directorship dates, which were not disputed. Citing Anita Malhotra case, the Court considered the Form 32 as evidence.

Issue 3: Director's role and liability

The complaint indicated that the cheques were issued by respondent No. 2 company when the petitioner was not a Director. The statutory notice was sent to other accused but not to the petitioner, as respondent No. 1 was unaware of his directorship. The Court noted the lack of specific allegations against the petitioner and the absence of his involvement in the offence. Referring to legal precedents, the Court emphasized the need for specific averments to establish a Director's liability.

Conclusion:

Considering the petitioner's non-director status during the alleged offence, the absence of statutory notice to him, and the lack of specific allegations, the Court found the continuation of proceedings against him to be an abuse of process. Therefore, the complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner was quashed, and the M.Cr.C. was allowed accordingly.