Full Text
M.A. No. 3195/2012
GYAN CHORDIA
Through: ..... Petitioners Mr. Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Iri Sharma, Advocates .
Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.l-
State Mr. V. Madhukar, Mr. Sachin Dev Sharma & Mr. Paritosh Anil, Advocates for respondent No.2
(ii) CRL.M.C. 920/2012 & Crl.
M.A. No. 3197/2012
NILINKASHAN KOLANGARADATH ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Iri Sharma, Advocates
State Page 1 \~ 2013:DHC:7706 (iii) CRL.M.C. 1308/2012 & Crl. M.A. Nos.4367 & 6487 of2012
ELTON RODRGUES & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Iri Sharma, Advocates
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORD·ER 11.12.2013
In the above captioned three petitions, quashing of summoning order of 14th March, 2011 and criminal complaint CC No. 6/2011 titled
C.M Power & Gas Pvt. Ltd Vs. Ganesh Benzoplast Limited & ors., in proceedings under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 is sought on merits.
In the above captioned first two petitions (Crl.M.C. No. 919/2012
& Crl. M.C. No. 920/2012), petitioners are the Non-Executive
Independent Directors of accused-company whereas petitioners in the above captioned third petition (Crl. M. C. No. 1308/2012) are is Vice-
President and Directors of the accused company. They have been summoned in the complaint in question pertaining to dishonor of the
Page 2 cheque of ~21,12,783/- which is purportedly signed by Chairman of the accused-company, who has not been arrayed as an accused in the complaint in question.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these three petitions were heard together, as quashing of the complaint is sought on identical grounds and by this common order, these petitions are being disposed of.
At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioners had relied upon decisions in S.MS. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla & anr. (2005)
JUDGMENT
(2006) 10 SCCC 581; Saroj Kumar Poddar Vs. State (NCT ofDelhi) & anr. (2007) 3 SCC 693; N K Wahi Vs. Shekhar Singh & ors. (2007) 9 SCC 481 and National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs. Harmeet Singh Paintal & anr. (2010) 3 SCC 330 to contend that petitioners cannot be made vicariously liable, as there are no specific averments against petitioners about the role played by them. Learned counsel for petitioners had drawn the attention of this Court to order of 12th April, 2012 ofthis Court which records the relevant ~ averments made in the complaint in question, which reads as under:- 'accused no. 2 to accused no.6 are principal officer of the company responsible for day to day affairs ofthe company and the offence was committed with their consent I connivance and neglect' Attention of this court was also drawn to the copy of complaint (Annexure P-17) in suit for damages wherein the liability of cheque Page 3 amount in question has been already admitted by accused-company. During the course of hearing, it was pointed out that personal appearance of petitioners before the trial court has been exempted by interim orders in these petitions and now the matter is coming up before the trial court for recording ofdeposition ofpetitioners on 1st February, 2014. Considering that the deposition of respondent /complainant has been already recorded by the trial court, this Court will not like to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to adjudicate upon the pleas raised in this petition and it is deemed appropriate to relegate petitioners to substantiate the pleas taken herein before the trial court, as question of vicarious liability raised is required to be adjudicated by the trial court after deposition of witnesses is recorded. In the· aforesaid view of this matter, the above captioned three petitions and applications are disposed of while not commenting on the merits of the merits of this case with liberty to petitioners to substantiate the pleas raised herein before trial court, as the complaint in question is at the stage ofrecording ofdeposition ofpetitioners. ·~ The above captioned three petitions and applications stand accordingly disposed of.
DECEMBER 11, 2013 r
(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE Page[4]