Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 694 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - petitioner is Director of the first Accused Company - vicarious liability of Director - deemed liability against the Petitioner as per Section 141(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - HELD THAT:- The specific averments in the complaint regarding the role of each of the Directors is found vague. As rightly pointed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the averments in the complaint does not state clearly the role of the Director Tajinder Singh Kataria. The averments in the complaint that each of the Directors of the Company are responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the Company will not specify the claim under Section 141(1) of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The fact that the Petitioner resigned from the Company as Director of the Company, the same was accepted by the Registrar of the Companies is available on the web portal of the Registrar of the Companies which is uploaded on daily basis. This fact is available and had to be considered before the Complainant proceeds to file a criminal complaint as the complaint contains allegations of the role played by each of the Director in committing the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, this particular contention that the Petitioner was not at all responsible for the first Accused Company on a day-to-day basis on the date of issuance of the cheque i.e., on 27.02.2019. The Petitioner resigned from the Company on 05.02.2016. Therefore, as per the details regarding the Directors of the first Accused Company available with the Registrar of Companies, on the date of filing of the criminal complaint, the Petitioner cannot be arrayed as Accused by the Respondent/Complainant. The uploaded details regarding the status of the Directors of the Company available on the web portal of the Registrar of Companies cannot be disputed by any one as it is an authenticated web portal under the Ministry of Company Affairs, Government of India. This Court exercising discretion under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., as per the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case STATE OF HARYANA VERSUS BHAJAN LAL [1990 (11) TMI 386 - SUPREME COURT] can consider this aspect. The Petitioner need not be forced to face trial. The ruling relied by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in MRS. ANITA MALHOTRA VERSUS APPAREL EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL (APPAREL EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL) [2011 (11) TMI 532 - SUPREME COURT] is regarding the role of each of the Directors of the Company while prosecuting the Company and its Directors for the alleged offences under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. When the Director of Company resigns and the resignation had been accepted by the Registrar of Companies, the said Director cannot be prosecuted. Therefore, as per Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, while prosecuting the Directors of the Company, it has to be clearly stated by the Complainant regarding the role of each of the Director in the alleged offence committed by the Company. In the light of the ruling cited by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in Anita Malhotra, the averments in the complaint regarding the role of each of the Director cannot be accepted, particularly, when the Petitioner herein had already resigned from the Board of Directors of the first Accused Company on 05.02.2016. There shall be a specific averment regarding the role of the Director who was a signatory on the Cheque for the day-to-day affairs of the Company. Under those circumstances, it is found from the Company that the Petitioner Tajinder Singh Kataria was not the Director of the Company as on the date of alleged offence in complaint. That is, when the Cheque was issued by the Company/Accused No.1 - Petition allowed.
|