Full Text
Translation output
•
#15
% 30.08.2011
Present: Ms.N.N. Firdausi, Advocate for the petitioners.
None for the respondent.
+Cri.M.C. No.804/2008 & Cri.M.A. No.3050/2008
No one appears on behalf of the respondent despite of service even on the second call. Thus, I have no alternative but to proceed with the matter after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner.
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of complaint No.1742/1/2006 titled "M/s. Alpha Engineers Vs. ICS Connect
Ltd. & Ors." pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House
Courts under Section N.l. Act.
The complaint is in relation to dishonour of three cheques bearing
Nos.234590, 234591 and 234592 drawn on ICICI Bank, Bhubaneshwar branch by M/s Floret Solution Pvt. Ltd. and two cheques bearing Nos.
098308 and 098309 drawn on UTI Bank Ltd. issued by M/s. Verb Connect.
It is alleged that those cheques were issued under the signatures of one Pritam Pal, authorised signatory of M/s. Floret Solution Pvt. Ltd. as well as Verb Connect for discharge of a valid liability. The cheques, on presentation were dishonoured. A notice under Section 138 N.l. Act was issued to the respective firms and the accused person, but they failed to comply with the demand. This led to filing of the complaint.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they have been wrongly roped in as accused in the complaint because they have no
2011:DHC:9637 connection whatsoever with the firms M/s. Verb Connect and/or M/s. Floret
Solution Pvt. Ltd., who had issued those cheques in favour of the complainant/respondent. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to the certified copy of the complaint filed by the respondent wherein it is alleged that the petitioners are Directors and in-charge of the company M/s. ICS Connect Ltd. which is arrayed as accused No.1 in the complaint. There is nothing in the body of the complaint to show that either of the cheques in question was issued
"• by or on behalf of M/s ICS Connect Ltd. Only allegation to connect M/s
ICS Connect Ltd. with the offence is that M/s ICS Connect Ltd. is an
• extended venture of accused No.2 M/s Floret Solution Pvt. Ltd and all works of M/s ICS Connect Ltd. are capitally funded by respondent No.2. As per allegations in the complaint M/s ICS Connect Ltd. is not the drawee of either of the cheques in question as such, aforesaid company cannot be said to be liable for the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act allegedly committed by M/s Floret Solution Pvt. Ltd. or M/s Verb Connect. Merely, because ICS Connect is alleged to be an extended venture of M/s Floret
Solution Pvt. Ltd., it cannot be said to be vicariously liable for the offence punishable under Section 138 N.l. Act committed by the aforesaid company.
The petitioners are alleged to be Directors of M/s ICS Connect Ltd. and there is no allegation in the complaint to show that they had any connection whatsoever with the other two accused companies or that they were responsible for running day to day affairs of those two companies.
Thus, in my considered view, no offence is shown to have been committed
• by the petitioners Amrinder Singh Sachdev and Mrs. Charanjeet Kaur
Sachdev as such, the summoning order dated 16.11.2006 as well as complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act qua the petitioners cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the complaint under Section
#15
% 30.08.2011
Present: Ms.N.N. Firdausi, Advocate for the petitioners.
None for the respondent.
+Cri.M.C. No.804/2008 & Cri.M.A. No.3050/2008
No one appears on behalf of the respondent despite of service even on the second call. Thus, I have no alternative but to proceed with the matter after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner.
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of complaint No.1742/1/2006 titled "M/s. Alpha Engineers Vs. ICS Connect
Ltd. & Ors." pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House
Courts under Section N.l. Act.
The complaint is in relation to dishonour of three cheques bearing
Nos.234590, 234591 and 234592 drawn on ICICI Bank, Bhubaneshwar branch by M/s Floret Solution Pvt. Ltd. and two cheques bearing Nos.
098308 and 098309 drawn on UTI Bank Ltd. issued by M/s. Verb Connect.
It is alleged that those cheques were issued under the signatures of one Pritam Pal, authorised signatory of M/s. Floret Solution Pvt. Ltd. as well as Verb Connect for discharge of a valid liability. The cheques, on presentation were dishonoured. A notice under Section 138 N.l. Act was issued to the respective firms and the accused person, but they failed to comply with the demand. This led to filing of the complaint.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they have been wrongly roped in as accused in the complaint because they have no
2011:DHC:9637 connection whatsoever with the firms M/s. Verb Connect and/or M/s. Floret
Solution Pvt. Ltd., who had issued those cheques in favour of the complainant/respondent. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to the certified copy of the complaint filed by the respondent wherein it is alleged that the petitioners are Directors and in-charge of the company M/s. ICS Connect Ltd. which is arrayed as accused No.1 in the complaint. There is nothing in the body of the complaint to show that either of the cheques in question was issued
"• by or on behalf of M/s ICS Connect Ltd. Only allegation to connect M/s
ICS Connect Ltd. with the offence is that M/s ICS Connect Ltd. is an
• extended venture of accused No.2 M/s Floret Solution Pvt. Ltd and all works of M/s ICS Connect Ltd. are capitally funded by respondent No.2. As per allegations in the complaint M/s ICS Connect Ltd. is not the drawee of either of the cheques in question as such, aforesaid company cannot be said to be liable for the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act allegedly committed by M/s Floret Solution Pvt. Ltd. or M/s Verb Connect. Merely, because ICS Connect is alleged to be an extended venture of M/s Floret
Solution Pvt. Ltd., it cannot be said to be vicariously liable for the offence punishable under Section 138 N.l. Act committed by the aforesaid company.
The petitioners are alleged to be Directors of M/s ICS Connect Ltd. and there is no allegation in the complaint to show that they had any connection whatsoever with the other two accused companies or that they were responsible for running day to day affairs of those two companies.
Thus, in my considered view, no offence is shown to have been committed
• by the petitioners Amrinder Singh Sachdev and Mrs. Charanjeet Kaur
Sachdev as such, the summoning order dated 16.11.2006 as well as complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act qua the petitioners cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the complaint under Section
JUDGMENT
138 N.l. Act and the summoning order dated 16.11.2006 qua the petitioners are set aside. AUGUST 30, 2011 pst ¥ (AJIT BHARIHOKE) JUDGE
JUDGMENT