Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 570 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - vicarious liability - Section 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - resignation of the petitioner as per Form 32 - Counsel for the complainant had contended that the complaint contains sufficient avernments as required under Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act and on the basis of that the process has been issued - Held that:- The accused had resigned before the cheques were issued and dishonoured. The acceptance of appellant’s resignation is reflected in the resolution as well as Form 32 of the company. It is not the case of the complainant that the dishonoured cheques were issued by the appellant. These facts leave no manner of doubt that on the date of the offence was committed by the company, the appellant was not the director and he had nothing to do with the affairs of the company. In this view of the matter, if the Criminal complaints are allowed to proceed against the appellant, it would result in gross injustice to the appellant and tantamount to an abuse of process of Court. In the present case, although the resolution is not produced, there is nothing on record to doubt the genuineness of Form 32 produced by the petitioneraccused. The Form 32 was filed on 30.08.2013 giving effect to resignation of petitioner from 01.07.2013. Thus, before date of issuance of cheque and its dishonour the petitioner had resigned and Form 32 was filed with ROC Karnataka. The verification clause of Form 32 mentions that accused No.1 Company has verified information and that the person tendering it has been authorised by Board of Directors resolution dated 17.07.2013 to sign and submit the Form. There is no material to doubt the genuineness of Form 32 produced by the petitioner. Merely an account entry in Form 32 as Additional Director/independent director Form 32 with regards to resignation cannot be discarded. It is not necessary to refer to the other issues raised by the petitioner as the proceedings are required to be quashed on this ground alone. It is also pertinent to note that the process was issued in the present case on 01.04.2015. The petitioner thereafter preferred revision application challenging the order of process before the Sessions Court which was rejected by order dated 20.01.2017. The plea was recorded on 07.06.2017. In the light of the observations made above merely because the plea was recorded on the aforesaid date, the petition cannot be dismissed on the ground that it is not maintainable. Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
|