Full Text
Translation output
4^ $-46 & 47 HIGH COURT OF DELHI (i) CRL.M.C. 4598/2013
SMI ALKA PUm Petitioner
Through: Mr.Dilip Singh, Ms. Roshan Jahan and Ms. Tamanna Perveen, Advocates
SMI ALKA PUm Petitioner
Through: Mr.Dilip Singh, Ms. Roshan Jahan and Ms. Tamanna Perveen, Advocates
VERSUS
SHILPI COMMUNICATION PVT LTD Respondent
Through: Nemo (ii) CRL.M.C. 4599/2013 SMT ALKA PURI Petitioner
Through: Mr.DiUp Singh, Ms. Roshan Jahan and Ms. Tamanna Perveen, Advocates
Through: Nemo (ii) CRL.M.C. 4599/2013 SMT ALKA PURI Petitioner
Through: Mr.DiUp Singh, Ms. Roshan Jahan and Ms. Tamanna Perveen, Advocates
VERSUS
SHILPI COMMUNICATION PVT LTD Respondent
Through: Nemo
Through: Nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
30.10.2013 Crl.M.As.l6479 & 16480 of 2013 (Exemption)
Allowed subjectto alljust exceptions.
CRL. M.Cs. N0.4598 & 4599 of 2013 In the above-captioned first petition, quashing of criminal complaint No.199/1/2013 and in the latter petition, quashing ofcriminal complaint No.200/1/2013 both titled Shilpi Communication Pvt. Ltd. v.
CRLMCs. 4598 &4599 of2013 Page 1 \ 2013:DHC:7945
Delicia Foods India Private Limited and Ors. under Sections 138/141 of theNegotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is sought on merits.
At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner had contended that petitioner is a full time permanent teacher inArmy Public School and not all Directors of occv&Qdi-company are liable to be prosecuted in such like cases. However, it was disclosed bypetitioner's counsel that Notice under
Section 251 of the Cr.P.C. has not yet been framed by the trial court in the afore-noted two complaints. A prayer was made by petitioner's counsel that these petitions be disposed of in terms of order of 19"^
September, 2013 passed by this Court in Crl.M.C.3145/2013 titled Alka
Puri V. Shilpi Communication P. Ltd..
A bare perusal of the two complaints in question reveals that petitioner is accused No.3 in these complaints in which there are allegations that petitioner and her co-accused were the Directors of
QCQViSQd-company, who were incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of accused-com;?a«y. On this aspect, the pertinent observations made by the Apex Court in K.K. Ahuja v. V.K. Vora andAnr. (2009) 10 see 48 are as under: -
"Therefore, the averment in a complaint that an accused is a Director and that he is in charge of and is responsible to the companyfor the conduct ofthe business ofthe company, duly affirmed in the sworn statement may he sufficientfor thepurpose ofissuing summons tohim.... "
Upon hearing and on perusal ofthe complaints in question, I find that the question raised in above-captioned two petitions is an issue which is required to be raised before the trial court at the stage of hearing on
CRLMCs. 4598 &4599 of2013 Page 2 framing of Notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. Needless to say that the trial court shall hear petitioner's counsel at the stage of hearing on the framing of Notice and petitioner is at liberty to urge the pleas taken herein before the trial court, which shall be considered by the trial court and dealt with by passing a speaking order. In case trial court finds that
Notice is not to be framed against petitioner, then Apex Court's decision in Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal and Ors. (2004) 7 SCC 338 will not stand in the way oftrial court to drop the proceedings against petitioner.
The above-captioned two petitions are accordingly disposed of while not commenting upon the merits, lest it may prejudice petitioner at the hearing on the point offraming ofNotice.
5UNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 30,2013 s CRLMCs. 4598 &4599 of2013 Page 3
30.10.2013 Crl.M.As.l6479 & 16480 of 2013 (Exemption)
Allowed subjectto alljust exceptions.
CRL. M.Cs. N0.4598 & 4599 of 2013 In the above-captioned first petition, quashing of criminal complaint No.199/1/2013 and in the latter petition, quashing ofcriminal complaint No.200/1/2013 both titled Shilpi Communication Pvt. Ltd. v.
CRLMCs. 4598 &4599 of2013 Page 1 \ 2013:DHC:7945
Delicia Foods India Private Limited and Ors. under Sections 138/141 of theNegotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is sought on merits.
At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner had contended that petitioner is a full time permanent teacher inArmy Public School and not all Directors of occv&Qdi-company are liable to be prosecuted in such like cases. However, it was disclosed bypetitioner's counsel that Notice under
Section 251 of the Cr.P.C. has not yet been framed by the trial court in the afore-noted two complaints. A prayer was made by petitioner's counsel that these petitions be disposed of in terms of order of 19"^
September, 2013 passed by this Court in Crl.M.C.3145/2013 titled Alka
Puri V. Shilpi Communication P. Ltd..
A bare perusal of the two complaints in question reveals that petitioner is accused No.3 in these complaints in which there are allegations that petitioner and her co-accused were the Directors of
QCQViSQd-company, who were incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of accused-com;?a«y. On this aspect, the pertinent observations made by the Apex Court in K.K. Ahuja v. V.K. Vora andAnr. (2009) 10 see 48 are as under: -
"Therefore, the averment in a complaint that an accused is a Director and that he is in charge of and is responsible to the companyfor the conduct ofthe business ofthe company, duly affirmed in the sworn statement may he sufficientfor thepurpose ofissuing summons tohim.... "
Upon hearing and on perusal ofthe complaints in question, I find that the question raised in above-captioned two petitions is an issue which is required to be raised before the trial court at the stage of hearing on
CRLMCs. 4598 &4599 of2013 Page 2 framing of Notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. Needless to say that the trial court shall hear petitioner's counsel at the stage of hearing on the framing of Notice and petitioner is at liberty to urge the pleas taken herein before the trial court, which shall be considered by the trial court and dealt with by passing a speaking order. In case trial court finds that
Notice is not to be framed against petitioner, then Apex Court's decision in Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal and Ors. (2004) 7 SCC 338 will not stand in the way oftrial court to drop the proceedings against petitioner.
The above-captioned two petitions are accordingly disposed of while not commenting upon the merits, lest it may prejudice petitioner at the hearing on the point offraming ofNotice.
5UNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 30,2013 s CRLMCs. 4598 &4599 of2013 Page 3
JUDGMENT