TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 694X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ains allegations of the role played by each of the Director in committing the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, this particular contention that the Petitioner was not at all responsible for the first Accused Company on a day-to-day basis on the date of issuance of the cheque i.e., on 27.02.2019. The Petitioner resigned from the Company on 05.02.2016. Therefore, as per the details regarding the Directors of the first Accused Company available with the Registrar of Companies, on the date of filing of the criminal complaint, the Petitioner cannot be arrayed as Accused by the Respondent/Complainant. The uploaded details regarding the status of the Directors of the Company available on the web portal of the Registrar of Companies cannot be disputed by any one as it is an authenticated web portal under the Ministry of Company Affairs, Government of India. This Court exercising discretion under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., as per the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case STATE OF HARYANA VERSUS BHAJAN LAL [ 1990 (11) TMI 386 - SUPREME COURT ] can consider this aspect. The Petitioner need not be forced to face trial. The ruling re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chennai had also completed the requisite procedural formalities. The Petitioner is neither a signatory of the Cheque nor there is any specific allegation, prima facie to prove that the Petitioner was in-charge and responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the management of the first Accused Company. The Petitioner had been arrayed as Accused solely on the ground that he was Director of the first Accused Company. At the time of alleged offence between 29.02.2019 to 09.05.2019 the fact remains that the Petitioner was not even a Director in the first Accused Company as evidenced by records from an unimpeachable statutory source i.e, the Registrar of Companies at Chennai, the copy of which is enclosed along with the typed set filed along with the Petition. There is no deemed liability against the Petitioner as per Section 141(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Petitioner had resigned from the Board of Directors of the Company on 05.02.2016, 3 years prior to the alleged cause of action. Therefore, the complaint cannot be fastened with the liability against the Petitioner. 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the reported rulin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion had been filed by the Petitioner herein is not maintainable as he failed to respond to the notice. Therefore, what had been submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner cannot be considered by exercising extraordinary powers of the Hon'ble High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C which is to be treated as valuable defence of the Accused. That has to be considered only during the trial. Therefore, this Petition has to be dismissed as not maintainable. 6. The learned Counsel for the Respondent relied on the rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in CDJ 2009 SC 792 in the case of Ravindra Kumar Madhanlal Goenka and another Vs. M/s.Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners Pvt. Ltd. He further invited the attention of this Court to the averments in the complaint, copy of the complaint is filed along with the Petition by the Petitioner/Accused, the relevant portion of the complaint is extracted hereunder: 3.The Complaint states that the Complainant and its sister concern M/s.Transpro Engineering Private Limited is also dealing in buying and selling of steel and other metal scraps and in the normal course, the Accused approached the Complainant and its sister concern M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in total the amount due is Rs.59,44,546/- (Rupees fifty nine lakhs forty four thousand five hundred and forty six only). 5. The complaint further states that the Accused requested the Complainant that to combine both the accounts i.e, the Complainant account and its sister concern's accounts and payments made by 1st Accused shall be adjusted at the discretion of the Complainant and its sister concern. 6. The Complainant further states that while this was the matter the Accused made on account part payment of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) on 25.02.2019 and Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs only) on 01.03.2019 through RTGS to the Complainant. And after giving credit to both these payments the first Accused is due to the Complainant and its sister concern put together a sum of Rs.59,44,546/- (rupees fifty nine lakhs forty four thousand five hundred and forty six only). The Accused is also liable to pay as per the business agreed terms, interest at 24% P.A on the total amount outstanding from each date of the invoice till the payment of realization of the amount by the Complainant and its sister concern. 7.the Complainant further state that the Accused had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e day-to-day affairs, financial and the management decision the first Accused Company and hence all of them are made parties to the present complaint. 13. This complaint is confined only in respect of dishonoured cheque and Complainant will file separate civil case in respect balance outstanding with interest. Therefore, the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner can be considered only as a valuable defence available to the Petitioners and cannot be considered by invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the Respondent sought to dismiss the Petition. 7. The Petitioner/Tajinder Singh Kataria, Director of the Company, who had resigned from the Company on 05.02.2016 and the same was accepted by the Registrar of Companies and he had also furnished Form -12 of the Registrar of Companies regarding cessation as Director of the Company. From the averments in the complaint, it is to be noted that the Accused had issued two cheques in discharge of the above said liability as one for Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs only) bearing cheque No.115865 dated 27.02.2019, and second cheque for Rs.44,44,546/- ( Rupees forty four lakhs forty fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Petitioner resigned from the Company on 05.02.2016. Therefore, as per the details regarding the Directors of the first Accused Company available with the Registrar of Companies, on the date of filing of the criminal complaint, the Petitioner cannot be arrayed as Accused by the Respondent/Complainant. The uploaded details regarding the status of the Directors of the Company available on the web portal of the Registrar of Companies cannot be disputed by any one as it is an authenticated web portal under the Ministry of Company Affairs, Government of India. Therefore, this Court exercising discretion under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., as per the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case State of Haryana -vs- Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335 can consider this aspect. The Petitioner need not be forced to face trial. Therefore, the rulings cited by the learned Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant in CDJ 2009 SC 792 in the case of Ravindra Kumar Madhanlal Goenka and another Vs. M/s.Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners Pvt. Ltd., is not applicable to the facts of this case. As in the reported ruling, it is a complaint under Section 120(b), 406, 420 and 384 of I.P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
