9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 694X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rima 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 rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335:1992 SCC (cri) 426 where the gui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 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/s.Transpro Engineering Private Limited, purchased goods from the Complainant and its sister concern M/s.Transpro Engineering Private Limited under various invoices the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. 7.the Complainant further state 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 four thousand and five hundred and forty six) bearing cheque No.115864 both the cheques were issued by the first Accused through the second Accused who is the authorized signatory/Director of the first Accused Company and the said cheques were drawn on IDBI Bank, G1 & F1, the Hub at Windsor Park, 5, Vaibhav Khand, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh - 201010. 8. The Complainant further submits that when the complaint presented the above said cheques with its banker Axis Bank, Old Washermenpet Branch, Chennai on 27.02.2019 for collection and encashment the same was returned dishonor with the remark "PAYMENT STOPPED BY THE DRAWER" on 28.02.2019. And when the Complainant presented the second cheque on 19.03.2019 for collection and encashment the same was returned dishonor with the remark "PAYMENT STOPPED BY THE DRAWER" on 20.03.2019. 9. The Complainant further submits that having received the info ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - ( Rupees forty four lakhs forty four thousand and five hundred and forty six) bearing cheque No.115864 both the cheques were issued by the first Accused through the second Accused who is the authorized signatory/Director of the first Accused Company and the said cheques were drawn on IDBI Bank, G1 & F1, the Hub at Windsor Park, 5, Vaibhav Khand, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh - 201010. The Complainant presented the above said cheques with its Banker Axis Bank, Old Washermenpet Branch, Chennai on 27.02.2019 for collection and encashment, the same was returned dishonoured with the remark "PAYMENT STOPPED BY THE DRAWER" on 28.02.2019. And when the Complainant presented the second cheque on 19.03.2019 for collection and encashment the same was returned dishonoured with the remark "PAYMENT STOPPED BY THE DRAWER" on 20.03.2019. Therefore, as pointed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the date on which the Cheques were signed and handed over to the Respondent/Complainant the Petitioner/Tajinder Singh Kataria was not the Director of the Company. 8. Therefore, the specific averments in the complaint regarding the role of each of the Directors is found vague. As rightly poi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 120(b), 406, 420 and 384 of I.P.C. where the appellants sought quashing of the criminal complaint based on the fact that 900 bales of cotton was already dispatched, 100 bales of cotton are to be dispatched for which alone criminal complaint had been lodged, that was considered as a valuable defence available to the Accused before the trial Court, which cannot be considered under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the said ratio is not applicable to this case. Here, the documents furnished by the Petitioner is available on the web portal of the Registrar of Companies, Ministry of Company Affairs. Therefore, the said ruling is not helpful to the Respondent/Complainant. Therefore, the same is rejected. 10. The ruling relied by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in Anita Malhotra Vs. Apparel Export Promotion Council reported in (2012) 1 SCC 520 is regarding the role of each of the Directors of the Company while prosecuting the Company and its Directors for the alleged offences under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. When the Director of Company resigns and the resignation had been accepted by the Registrar of Companies, the said Director cannot be prosecuted. Therefore, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
