TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hima Kohli, J. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying, inter alia , for quashing a Criminal Complaint Case No. 241/N/10/2006 filed by respondent No. 1 company/complainant against the petitioner and his two brothers, all directors of M/s. Majestic Agencies P. Ltd., for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "the Act") pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari courts. 2. The limited grievance of the petitioner herein is that the complaint qua him is liable to be quashed as the contents thereof even if taken to be true, do not fulfil the ingredient of the offence against him. 3. The case of respondent No. 1 company/complainant as set out in the complain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (annexure P4). In paragraph 3, the respondent/complainant stated as below : "3. That the accused is a private limited concern. The accused are responsible for the day-to-day operation and decision making of the accused firm." 5. Counsel for the petitioner states that a bare perusal of the present complaint shows that the same is liable to be quashed as the respondent has not stated as to how the petitioner has been made an accused or was in charge of the business of the company at the relevant time. In this regard, he seeks to place reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of K.K. Ahuja v. V.K. Vora [2009] 152 Comp. Cas. 520 ; [2009] (3) JCC (NI) 194 and in the case of National Small Industries Corp. Ltd. v. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsible for the day-to-day operations and decision making of the company, is not sufficient ground to throw out the complaint qua the petitioner, at this premature stage. 8. It may further be noted that in a recent judgment dated July 28, 2010, of this court in the case entitled Rajesh Agarwal v. State [2010] 159 Comp. Cas. 13 (Crl. M. C. No. 1996 of 2010), a single judge of this court has observed that the quashing of summoning order cannot be sought on the ground that the complaint and the evidence before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate does not disclose commission of offence by the petitioner/ accused. If the petitioner has other defences available to him, including the fact that he was not a director of the company at the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
