9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petition. Originally the complaint was filed before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai. Thereafter, it was transferred and now pending before the II Fast Track Metropolitan Magistrate, Allikulam, Egmore, Chennai for trial. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that he resigned the post of Director from M/s.Surana Power Limited on 24.01.2012 and thereafter he had nothing to do with the first accused company. Further, the petitioner is not an authorised signatory to the cheque, which is not in dispute. He further submitted that the case of the respondent/complainant is that the first accused company is registered under company's Act, 1956. The accused 2 to 5 are Managing Director and Directors of the company. Furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... about this petitioner and in para 8 omnibus description of the petitioner, there is nothing more against the petitioner. He further submitted that the admitted case of the respondent is that on 26.12.2014, a Letter of Credit Facility was availed and for the discharge of the liability, the cheque was issued on 26.03.2015. This is well beyond the period the petitioner resigning from the directorship of the first accused company. The petitioner resigned on 24.01.2012. The print out from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs website confirming the same had been produced. Further the list of directors of A1- company was also produced from which it is seen that the petitioner ceased to be a director after 24.01.2012. Further submitted that the co-acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng and Engineering Company Limited reported in (2018) 14 SCC 202, S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Limited vs. Neeta Bhalla and another reported in (2007) 4 SCC 70 and the decision of this Court in the case of Nimal Nithyanandam vs. Krishna Corporation rep. by Authorised Agent K.Karthick Ragunath reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 22537 and submitted that except for the bald allegation that the petitioner is the Director of the 1st accused company, there is no specific averments against the petitioner and the dictum rendered by the Apex Court in the case of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Limited vs. Neeta Bhalla and another is that merely being a Director of the company is not sufficient to make a person liable under Section 141 of the Act. The petitioner has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Crl.O.P.No.24740 of 2018 before this Court. This Court, by order dated 24.10.2018, closed the quash petition finding that the points raised by the petitioners therein are factual in nature and granted liberty to the petitioners to raise all the points before the trial Court. Similarly, Accused No.5 filed a quash petition in Crl.O.P.No.2226 of 2019 before this Court. Following the orders passed in Crl.O.P.No.24740 of 2018 dated 24.10.2018 and Crl.O.P.No.21021 of 2018 dated 31.01.2022, this Court dismissed the said petition. The petitioner/A3 is also on the same footing. Hence, this petition also to be dismissed. Further he submitted that the Apex Court in the case of S.Krishnamoorthy vs. Chellammal in Crl.A.No.1771 of 2010 had set aside t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esigned. In the present case the petitioner resigned in the year 2012. Dishonored cheque issued in the year, 2015. The dismissal of the quash petitions filed by A2, A4 and A5 would no way affect the case of the petitioner, since in that case the ground taken was that the cheque was issued as security, which is not the case herein. This Court had been regularly following the dictum given in the case of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Limited vs. Neeta Bhalla and another. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder: "11. From the complaint, it is seen that the cheque has been issued by the 1st accused company and the cheque has been signed by A2 as a Director and Authorised Signatory. Admittedly, the petitioner had not signed the cheque and from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t applicable to the facts of this case. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the accused in this case are taking adjournments by filing one petition or other and successfully stalled the trial of the case. The case is pending before the trial Court from the year 2015. It is almost 7 years from the date of filing of the complaint. The trial not yet commenced. In view of the same, the learned II Fast Track Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai is directed to proceed with the trial on a day-to-day basis and conclude the same preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.3645 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
