TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 577X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny is ultimately a question of fact, and no fixed formula can be fixed for the same, the High Court must exercise its power under S. 482, Cr.P.C. when it is convinced, from the material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the Court. A perusal of the record in the present case indicates that the appellant has specifically averred in his complaint that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 were actively participating in the daytoday affairs of the accused no.1 company. Further, the accused nos. 2 to 4 (including the respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein) are alleged to be from the same family and running the accused no.1 company together. The complaint also specificies that all the accused, in active con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no.1) on 01.12.2013 on the basis of representation of respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein, who were the Directors of the said Company. The appellant invested a total amount of ₹ 2,11,50,000/- in the said project. According to the appellant, as on 31.03.2016, a total amount of ₹ 1,81,50,000/- was left to be repaid to him along with applicable interest on it. Thereafter, upon several representations by the appellant, M/s Dhruti Infra Projects Limited agreed to repay the amount via issue of seven cheques in favour of the appellant. Six cheques for ₹ 25,00,000/- each and one cheque for ₹ 30,00,000/- were drawn on different dates by the authorised signatory, i.e. , M.D. of M/s Dhruti Infra Projects Limited, which were r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accused, in active connivance, mischievously and intentionally issued the cheques in favor of the appellant and later issued instructions to the Bank to Stop Payment . 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Kaushal Yadav submitted that the answering respondents are only nonexecutory Directors of the company, neither playing any role in the conduct of daytoday business of the company nor being in charge of the affairs of the company. Further, he also contended that merely by virtue of being a Director in a company, one cannot be deemed to be in charge of, or responsible to, the company for the conduct of its business. 8. In any case, the learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that his clien ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the record in the present case indicates that the appellant has specifically averred in his complaint that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 were actively participating in the daytoday affairs of the accused no.1 company. Further, the accused nos. 2 to 4 (including the respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein) are alleged to be from the same family and running the accused no.1 company together. The complaint also specificies that all the accused, in active connivance, mischievously and intentionally issued the cheques in favor of the appellant and later issued instructions to the Bank to Stop Payment . No evidence of unimpeachable quality has been brought on record by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to indicate that allowing the proceedings to continu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
