Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2020 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 137 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - whether as per the averments made in the legal notice, complaint and the presummoning evidence, the petitioner at the time of commission of offence was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company and its day-to-day affairs? HELD THAT:- In the present case, it is seen that in the legal notice issued by complainant company, a bald assertion was made that the co-accused i.e., Krishan Gopal Goyal (petitioner’s husband) along with the petitioner had approached the complainant company for being appointed as their authorized distributor and subsequently, at the time when products were provided, they were received/acknowledged by M/s Beyond Tele Private Limited through both of its directors and other representatives. It was also stated that M/s Beyond Tele Private Limited, under instructions from both the directors, had issued the impugned cheque. The complainant company acknowledged the receipt of the reply however, despite coming to know of the aforesaid stand of the petitioner, no specific or further details regarding the date, time and place of the meetings with the petitioner were mentioned either in the complaint filed under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the N.I. Act or in the pre-summoning evidence. Even in the present proceedings, only written submissions have been filed but no reply has been filed by the complainant company either specifically denying the petitioner’s stand or giving any further details qua the petitioner. A combined reading of the legal notice, the complaint as well as the pre-summoning evidence would show that in spite of the aforementioned specific stand taken on behalf of the petitioner, no additional averment has come detailing the role of the petitioner either in the complaint or in the pre-summoning evidence. Admittedly, the present petitioner neither signed the cheque in question nor signed nor witnessed the Distributorship Agreement. In fact, it has not even been averred that the petitioner was even present at the time of signing the agreement. The person who has signed the cheque in question and the Distributorship Agreement i.e., Krishan Gopal Goyal (husband of the petitioner) as well as the company i.e., M/s Beyond Tele Private Limited have also been summoned as accused in the complaint case along with the present petitioner. The present petition has been filed only on behalf of the petitioner. Thus, necessary ingredients required to constitute the offence under Section 141 of the N.I. Act qua the present petitioner are not satisfied - petition allowed.
|