Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
(i) CRL.M.C 1235/2011 PREMIER BRANDS PVT. LT.D & ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr. J.P. Sengh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Raman Gandhi, Mr. Sumeet Batra and Ms. Ankita Gupta, Advocates
(i) CRL.M.C 1235/2011 PREMIER BRANDS PVT. LT.D & ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr. J.P. Sengh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Raman Gandhi, Mr. Sumeet Batra and Ms. Ankita Gupta, Advocates
VERSUS
ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, COMMONWEALTH GAMES DELHI-2010 Respondent
Through: Mr. Rohit Aggarwal and Mr. Rahul Malhotra, Advocates
(ii) CRL.M.C. 1236/2011 PREMIER BRANDS PVT. LT.D & ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr. J.P. Sengh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Raman Gandhi, Mr. Sumeet Batra and Ms. Ankita Gupta, Advocates
Through: Mr. Rohit Aggarwal and Mr. Rahul Malhotra, Advocates
(ii) CRL.M.C. 1236/2011 PREMIER BRANDS PVT. LT.D & ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr. J.P. Sengh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Raman Gandhi, Mr. Sumeet Batra and Ms. Ankita Gupta, Advocates
VERSUS
ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, COMMONWEALTH GAMES DELHI-2010 Respondent
^ Through: Mr. Rohit Aggarwal and Mr, Rahul Malhotra, Advocates
^ Through: Mr. Rohit Aggarwal and Mr, Rahul Malhotra, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
13.11.2013 In the above-captioned two petitions, quashing of criminal
CrlMC.I235&1236ofll Page 1 2013:DHC:6627 complaint No.3628/1/2011 [in Crl.M.C. 1235/11] and criminal complaint
No.3627/1/2011 [in Crl.M.C. 1236/11] both under Section 138 of The
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is sought on merits.
With the consent of learned counsel for both the sides, these two petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
At the hearing, learned senior counsel for petitioners submits that petitioner No.2 is a signatory of the cheque in question and petitioners
No.3 to 5 cannot be arrayed as accused while invoking vicarious liability.
Learned counsel for respondent fairly concedes that the complaints in question can proceed qua first two petitioners only.
In view of the stand taken as aforesaid, both these petitions are disposed of with direction that complaints in question shall henceforth proceed qua first two petitioners i.e. accused-company and its Chairman-
Suresh Kumar only. Needless to say, petitioners will be at liberty to urge the pleas taken herein in respect of first two petitioners before the trial court at the stage offraming ofNotice under Section 251 ofCr.P.C.
Interim orders of20''' April, 2011 stand vacated.
Till then, subject to petitioners appearing before the trial court through counsel and not seeking adjournment, their personal exemption be not insisted upon by the trial court.
Both these petitions and theappeal are accordingly disposed of t^^LGAURj
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 13,2013 s Crl.M.C.1235&1236ofll ^ Page!
2013:DHC:6627
13.11.2013 In the above-captioned two petitions, quashing of criminal
CrlMC.I235&1236ofll Page 1 2013:DHC:6627 complaint No.3628/1/2011 [in Crl.M.C. 1235/11] and criminal complaint
No.3627/1/2011 [in Crl.M.C. 1236/11] both under Section 138 of The
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is sought on merits.
With the consent of learned counsel for both the sides, these two petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
At the hearing, learned senior counsel for petitioners submits that petitioner No.2 is a signatory of the cheque in question and petitioners
No.3 to 5 cannot be arrayed as accused while invoking vicarious liability.
Learned counsel for respondent fairly concedes that the complaints in question can proceed qua first two petitioners only.
In view of the stand taken as aforesaid, both these petitions are disposed of with direction that complaints in question shall henceforth proceed qua first two petitioners i.e. accused-company and its Chairman-
Suresh Kumar only. Needless to say, petitioners will be at liberty to urge the pleas taken herein in respect of first two petitioners before the trial court at the stage offraming ofNotice under Section 251 ofCr.P.C.
Interim orders of20''' April, 2011 stand vacated.
Till then, subject to petitioners appearing before the trial court through counsel and not seeking adjournment, their personal exemption be not insisted upon by the trial court.
Both these petitions and theappeal are accordingly disposed of t^^LGAURj
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 13,2013 s Crl.M.C.1235&1236ofll ^ Page!
2013:DHC:6627
JUDGMENT