TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 2065X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpeachable material produced by the petitioners, would not make out a case against the petitioners. This Court opines that continuation of further proceedings against the petitioners would only result in abuse of process of law. Petition allowed. - CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.3703, 3715, 3717, 3725, 4350, 4354, 4355, 4356, 4357, 4363, 4364 and 4365 of 2013 and 4317 and 5166 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 14-9-2018 - SMT T. RAJANI, J. ORDER Though the petitioners are different, since the complainant and since the cause of action arises out of the same business transaction, the criminal petitions are disposed of together by this common order. 2. The complainant-bank, though, has filed a complaint against A1 to A9 for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short the Act ), A6, A7 and A9 are before this Court by way of respective criminal petitions, seeking for quash of proceedings in CC.No.4 of 2013 on the file of the IX Special Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, CC.Nos.116, 117 and 119 of 2013 on the file of the XIII Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and CC.No.447 of 2013 on the file of the XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the liability and informing the complainant that they could not honour the said cheque due to mismatch of cash flows and liquidity crunch at their end and indicated its intent to pay the amount due to the complainant and requested for additional time, till end of August 2012, to repay the dues. The accused also undertook to remit some amount on a daily basis, starting from 28.06.2012, which they failed to do. Hence, the complaint. 5. The petitioners seek for quash of the proceedings on the ground that the Courts below grossly erred in taking cognizance of the offence without applying judicious mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, though there are no allegations against the petitioners that they are responsible for the day to day affairs of the company nor were they signatories of the cheque. The petitioners were only directors of A1 company and were no way concerned with the alleged offences. The Courts below ought to have seen that the alleged cheque was signed by A3 on behalf of A1 company and the petitioners have nothing to do with its day to day business. 6. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are only directors in the company and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll reading of the complaint, the High Court may find that the basic averment is sufficient, that it makes out a case against the Director; that there is nothing to suggest that the substratum of the allegation against the Director is destroyed rendering the basic averment insufficient and that since offence is made out against him, his further role can be brought out in the trial. In another case, the High Court may quash the complaint despite the basic averment. It may come across some unimpeachable evidence or acceptable circumstances which may in its opinion lead to a conclusion that the Director could never have been in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time and therefore making him stand the trial would be abuse of the process of court as no offence is made out against him. 31. When in view of the basic averment process is issued the complaint must proceed against the Directors. But, if any Director wants the process to be quashed by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code on the ground that only a bald averment is made in the complaint and that he is really not concerned with the issuance of the cheque, he must ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as such director or having transaction not exceeding ten per cent. of his total income or such amount as may be prescribed, with the company, its holding, subsidiary or associate company, or their promoters, or directors, during the two immediately preceding financial years or during the current financial year;] (d) none of whose relatives has or had pecuniary relationship or transaction with the company, its holding, subsidiary or associate company, or their promoter, or directions, amounting to two per cent. or more of its gross turnover or total income or fifty lakh rupees or such higher amount as may be prescribed, whichever is lower, during the two immediately preceding financial years or during the current financial year; (e) who, neither himself nor any of his relatives- (i) holds or has held the position of a key managerial personnel or is or has been employee of the company or its holding, subsidiary or associate company in any of the three financial years immediately preceding the financial year in which he is proposed to be appointed; (ii) is or has been an employee or proprietor or a partner, in any of the three financial years immediately preceding the fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
