Full Text
M/S L&T FINANCE LTD. Petitioner
Through: Mr.PuneetBajaj& Mr.Amit Bajaj,Advocates
Through: Nemo (ii) + CRL.M.C.2704/2015
Crl.M.C.No.2705/2015 CrI.M.C.No.2706/2015 2015:DHC:11229
DEPINDER SINGH BEDI Respondent
10.07.2015 Crl.M.A.No.9677/2015(for delay)in Crl.M.C.No.2703/2015
Crl.M.A.No.9678/2015(for delay)in CrI.M.C.No.2704/2015
Crl.M.A.No.9683/2015(for delavl in CrI.M.C.No.2705/2015
CrI.M.A.No.9686/2015(for delavl in CrI.M.C.No.2706/2015
Delay of37days'in filing the accompanying petitions is condoned for the reasons stated in the applications.
Applications are disposed of.
Crl.M.A.No.9671/2015(for exemptionl in Crl.M.C.No.2703/2015
Crl.M.A.No.9679/2015(for exemption!in CrI.M.C.No.2704/2015
Crl.M.A.No.9682/2015(for exemption)in CrI.M.C.No.2705/2015
CrI.M.A.No.9685/2015(for exemptionl in Crl.M.C.No.2706/2015
Allowed subjectto alljustexceptions.
Crl.M.C.No.2703/2015 & Crl.M.A.No.9675/2015(for stay)
CrI.M.C.No.2704/2015 & CrLM.A.No.9678/2015(for stavl
CrI.M.C.No.2705/2015 & Crl.M.A.No.9681/2015(for stavl
Cri.M.C.No.2706/2015 & CrLM.A.No.9684/2015(for stavl
In the above captioned four petitions, challenge is to the impugned fli order of 11 February, 2015 whereby summoning order against respondent- accused in criminal complaints under Section 138 of The
NegotiableInstrumentsAct, 1881 is set aside.
Crl.M.C.No.2703/2015 Page2 Crl.M.C.No.2704/2015
Crl.M.C.No.2706/2015 CP At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the challenge to the impugned order ofeven date i.e. of ll""February,2011 in the above captioned four petitions is on identical grounds and so,these petitions were heard together and are being disposed ofby this common
ORDER
In the impugned orders, reliance is placed upon Apex Court's decision in K. K.Ahuja Vs. V.K. Vora(2009)10 SCO 48 to discharge the
^ respondent-accused, as no specific role was assigned to him in the complaints in question.
At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance upon decisions in Prakas Kartha D. Ravindranath Kartha & ors. Vs. State of
Maharashtra & anr. 2005 (2) DCR 250; K. K. Ahuja Vs. V.K. Vohra
(2009) 10 see 48; Rallis India Ltd. Vs. Podru Vidya Bhushan & ors. 2011(4)SCALE and Krishan MurariLai Vs. IFCIFactorsLtd. 2013[1] JCC[NI] 1 to submit that it is suffice to aver that an accused is looking after day to day affairs of the accused-company and in the instant complaints, there are specific allegations against respondent-accused for prosecution under Section 141 ofThe NegotiableInstrumentsAct, 1881. Attention ofthis Court has been drawn to paragraphs No.3,[5] &9 ofthe complaints to submitthatfor the purpose oftaking cognizance,it is suffice to aver that an accused is in control ofthe affairs ofthe accusedcompany and there is no legal requirement for petitioner-complainant to show that respondent-accused was aware ofspecific transaction between the parties and unless opportunity is given to lead evidence, no definite conclusion can be reached regarding absence of vicarious liability of CrI.M.C.No.2703/2015 ~ Page[3] CrI.M.C.No.2705/2015 (3) respondent-accused. Lastly, it was urged that Revisional Court vide impugned order has erroneously set aside the impugned order and it deserves to be quashed. Upon hearing and on perusal of trial court's order and impugned order, Resolution (Annexure P-3), Complaints in question as well as the decisions cited,I find that respondent-accused is a mere Director and his co-accused,who is a whole time Director,has not been summoned by the ^ trial court.Admittedly,respondent-accused has notsigned the chequesin question and the trial court's order not summoning respondent's coaccused, who is a whole time Director, has attained finality. The averments against respondent-accused and his co-accused, who was a whole time Director,are identical and so,treating the case ofrespondentaccused at par with the case of co-accused, who was a whole time Director,I find that decisions relied upon by petitioner are ofno avail in the afore-noted peculiarity ofthese cases. On the aforesaid aspect, impugned order is sustained and these petitions and the applications are dismissed while not expressing any ^ opinion on the merits,lest it may prejudicethe other co-accused,who are facing proceedings in the complaintcases in question.
(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE