TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sic averment to the effect that the persons who have been arrayed as accused, are responsible/ in charge of the day-to-day business of the Company. This Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court after considering the allegations made against the applicants in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the complaint, did not commit any mistake in taking cognizance against the applicants and issuing summons to the applicants. Petition dismissed. - MCRC 10582/2016 - - - Dated:- 14-8-2018 - G.S. Ahluwalia J. For the Applicants : Shri Vivek Dalal, counsel For the Respondents : None ORDER The present petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed for quashment of the order dated 03/05/2016, by which cognizance has been taken by the Court below, as well as the order dated 18/05/2016, by which the trial Magistrate has issued summons against the applicants. The Office has pointed out that the respondents No. 2 and 3 have not been served. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that the respondents No.2 and 3 are not the necessary party and by mistake, they were made respondents because they are the co-accused persons along with the present applicant in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Limited on record and from the said Memorandum of Association, it is clear that the applicants are not Directors of M/s.Mayuri Herbal Care Private Limited. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the applicants. The complainant/ respondent No.1 in its complaint has mentioned as under:- Thus, it is clear that the complainant has mentioned that the applicants and other co-accused persons are '' Karta Dharta'' of the Company and they are authorized signatories and they had given the cheque in question to the complainant/respondent No.1 with an assurance and belief that such cheque would get encashed. Thus, the basic allegations in the complaint which have been made by the respondent No.1/complainant against the applicants are that they are the '' Karta Dharta'' of the Company and the cheque was also given by them with an assurance and belief that the said cheque would be encashed by the Bank, however, the cheque was returned on the ground of ''insufficient funds''. The question for consideration is that whether the averments made in the complaint that the applicants are '' Karta Dharta'' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the business of the Company. However, in view of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Neeta Bhalla and another, reported in (2005) 8 SCC 89, it is essential for the complainant to allege in the complaint that the persons who have been arrayed as accused, are responsible for the day-to-day business of the Company. Thus, the complainant is under obligation to allege in the complaint that the persons who had been arrayed as accused, are responsible for the day-to-day business of the Company. Whether there is any specific allegation that the persons who have been arrayed as accused, are the persons in charge of the day-to-day business of the Company and whether the same is sufficient to make out a prima facie offence against the applicants or not, is the moot question for consideration. The Supreme Court in the case of Standard Chartered Bank vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2016) 6 SCC 62 has held as under : ''31. Now, is the time to scan the complaint. Mr Divan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant Bank, has drawn our attention to Paras 2, 4 and 10 of the complaint petition. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said averments, as we find, clearly meet the requisite test. It is apt to mention here that there are seven accused persons. Accused 1 is the Company, Accused 2 and 3 are the Chairman and Managing Director respectively and Accused 6 and 7 were signatory to the cheques. As far as Accused 4 and 5 were concerned, they were whole-time Directors and the assertion is that they were in charge of day-to-day business of the Company and all of them had with active connivance, mischievously and intentionally issued the cheques in question.'' In the said case, the averments made against the persons who were arrayed as accused were that the said persons are the Managing Director, Executive Director and Whole-time Director, and were responsible and in charge of day-to-day business of accused Company when the offence was committed. Although in the present case, the words used ''Karta Dharta'' in paragraph 1 of complaint cannot be said to be happily-worded complaint but if the meaning of words ''Karta Dharta'' is considered, then it would mean that the applicants along with other co-accused persons are managing the day-to-day business of the Compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
