TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 842X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uction. Thus, specific averments in a criminal complaint which satisfy the requirements of Section 141 N.I. Act are imperative. On a prima facie view of the material placed on record in the present case, it is apparent that specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. Apart from the basic averment that the petitioner was in-charge of and responsible for the day-to-day business of the accused company, it was further averred in the complaint that the petitioner, being a Director, was in charge of the financial decision-making of the accused company and he had agreed to guarantee repayment of all amounts payable by the accused company to the complainant in terms of the Factoring Agreement. On an overall reading of the com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the cheques in question were issued in its favour by the accused company, i.e. Daily Life Retail and Trading Pvt. Ltd., and the same, on presentation, were dishonoured and returned with the remarks account closed . As a result, a legal notice dated 30.07.2010 was issued and on failure of the accused persons to clear the outstanding payment in terms of the cheques in question, the aforesaid complaints came to be filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought quashing of the complaint cases on the ground that only bald and vague allegations have been made against the present petitioner, who was a dormant Director out of the many Directors of the accused company. He submits that the petitioner was not responsible for the run ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n record as well as the decisions cited in support of his submissions. 6. A perusal of the aforesaid complaints would show that the complainant alleged that the present petitioner, who has been arrayed as accused No. 2, had agreed to guarantee repayment of all payments payable by the accused company in terms of the Factoring Agreement. It was also alleged that the present petitioner along with other accused persons was in-charge and responsible for making financial decisions of the accused company. 7. One of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner is that he was not served with any demand notice separately. However, the same does not weigh with this Court in view of the decision in Kirshna Texport and Capital Markets Limi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er who was the CEO of the accused company. As such, none of the decisions on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are applicable to the facts of the present case. 9. Another contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that as a special condition precedent to the aforesaid Agreement, the accused company was required to provide security cheques for the concerned amount and it was in furtherance of the same that the cheques in question, i.e. four cheques of ₹ 25,00,000/-, were given as security. The position of law regarding the issue as to whether cheques in question were given as security in a case under Section 138 N.I. Act is well-settled to the effect that the same shall be a matter of trial. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, the complaint under section 138 of the N.I Act was maintainable and all contentions and the defence were to be considered during the course of the trial. 10. It is also worthwhile to reproduce the view taken recently in Sunil Todi and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another reported as 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1174, wherein the Supreme Court was in seisin of appeals preferred by accused/appellants against the order of the High Court, whereby petitions seeking quashing of criminal complaints filed under Section 138 N.I. Act were dismissed. The Court observed thus:- 53. The test to determine if the Managing Director or a Director must be charged for the offence committed by the Company is to determine if the conditions in Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, the issue whether or not the conditions stipulated in Section 141 of the N.I. Act have been fulfilled in the present case shall be a matter of trial in view of the decision in Sunil Todi (Supra). 12. In the opinion of this Court, on an overall reading of the complaints, it cannot be said that the allegations levelled are bald and vague. The petitioner has also not placed on record any material of unimpeachable quality in support of his claim that he was a dormant Director which issue, alongwith other defences raised, shall be a matter of trial. Suffice it to say, the complaint cases ought not be quashed qua the petitioner at this stage. 13. Keeping in view the aforesaid, I find no ground to entertain the present petitions. Accordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
