Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 1171 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - role of the accused/petitioners not clearly mentioned in the complaint - impleadment of petitioner in the complaint who had already resigned in 2009 and 2010 - issuance of cheque by the petitioners or not - legal notices not sent to the petitioners as well - HELD THAT:- It is settled law that in a complaint under Section 138/141/142 of the NI Act, the specific roles of the accused must be delineated in the complaint. It is generally mentioned in the complaint filed by the respondent that the accused No. 2 to 6 including the petitioners herein are jointly and severally liable for the offences. It is nowhere pleaded that the cheque that was dishonoured had been issued by any of the petitioners. The Form-32 produced before the learned Trial Court was by the complainant/respondent himself and he did not dispute the genuineness of that Form that he had placed on the record. When the document was not disputed and it is a form that is filed as a statutory requirement entailing consequences for false information being furnished to the Registrar of Companies, on the mere say so of the complainant that the present petitioners were still active Directors, the learned Trial Court chose to reject their plea for discharge. It was of the view that without the certified copies, the undisputed documents could not be accepted. The proof that they would have led as evidence would be the certified copies of the Form-32 filed before the ROC. They have now filed the certified copies before this Court. In fact, the learned Trial Court could have called for the same. The certified copy of Form-32 is of sterling quality and can be considered by this Court at this stage. It is clear that once the petitioners had resigned way back in 2009 and 2010 respectively, they could not have been responsible either for the issuance of the cheque dated 25th April, 2016 nor for its dishonor in April and May, 2016. They could not have been impleaded as accused in the complaint. The absence of a legal notice to these petitioners would suggest that the respondent was aware of the fact that they have resigned from the company long ago. Petition allowed.
|