Full Text
Translation output
y.
$-5 to 10, 12 to 20 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 4723/2016 & Crl.M.A. 19674/2016, 8045/2017
CHANAKYA BHUPEN CHAKRAVARTI & ANR Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Sonam Gupta, Mr. Anurag Tandon &
Mr. Mayank Sharma, Advs.
$-5 to 10, 12 to 20 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 4723/2016 & Crl.M.A. 19674/2016, 8045/2017
CHANAKYA BHUPEN CHAKRAVARTI & ANR Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Sonam Gupta, Mr. Anurag Tandon &
Mr. Mayank Sharma, Advs.
VERSUS
DEVVRATIMPEX P.LTD. Respondent
Through: Mr. Shekhar Gupta & Mr. Arav Kapoor, Advs.
Through: Mr. Shekhar Gupta & Mr. Arav Kapoor, Advs.
CRL.M.C. 4725/2016 & Crl.M.A. 19678/2016, 8044/2017
CHANAKYA BHUPEN CHAKRAVARTI & ANR Petitioners
CHANAKYA BHUPEN CHAKRAVARTI & ANR Petitioners
VERSUS
DEVVRATIMPEX P.LTD. Respondent
CRL.M.C. 4727/2016 & Crl.M.A. 19681/2016, 8046/2017
VERSUS
DEVVRAT IMPEX P.LTD. Respondent
CRL.M.C. 4723/2016 &conn. page I of7
2018:DHC:8264
2018:DHC:8264
CRL.M.C. 4730/2016 & Crl.M.A. 19687/2016, 8047/2017
VERSUS
DEVVRAT IMPEX PVT LTD Respondent
CRL.M.C. 4732/2016 & Crl.M.A. 19692/2016, 8043/2017
VERSUS
Through: Mr. ShekharGupta & Mr. Arav CRL.M.C. 4734/2016 & Crl.M.A. 19695/2016, 8051/2017
VERSUS
Through: Mr. Shekhar Gupta& Mr. Arav CRL.M.C. 4736/2016 & Crl.M.A. 19703/2016, 8052/2017
CHANAKYA BHUPEN CHAKRAVARTY & ANR Petitioners
CHANAKYA BHUPEN CHAKRAVARTY & ANR Petitioners
CRLM.C. 4723/2016 &conn. page 2of!
Sonam Gupta, Mr. Anurag Tandon & Mr. Mayank Sharma, Advs.
Sonam Gupta, Mr. Anurag Tandon & Mr. Mayank Sharma, Advs.
VERSUS
CRL.M.C. 4737/2016 & Crl.M.A. 19705/2016, 8053/2017
CHANAKYA BHUJPEN CHAKRAVARTI & ANR Petitioners
CHANAKYA BHUJPEN CHAKRAVARTI & ANR Petitioners
VERSUS
CRL.M.C. 4739/2016 & Crl.M.A. 19709/2016, 8054/2017
VERSUS
CRL.M.C. 4740/2016 & Crl.M.A. 19713/2016, 8055/2017
CRL.M.C. 4723/2016 & conn. page 3 of?
VERSUS
DEVVRAT IMPEX P. LTD. Respondent
CRL.M.C. 4741/2016 & Crl.M.A. 19715/2016, 8040/2017
Through: Mr, Mohit Mathur, Sr. Adv. with Ms.
Through: Mr, Mohit Mathur, Sr. Adv. with Ms.
VERSUS
CRL.M.C. 4742/2016 & Crl.M.A. 19719/2016, 8041/2017
VERSUS
CRL.M.C. 4743/2016 & Crl.M.A. 19721/2016, 8042/2017
VERSUS
CRL.M.C. 4723/2016& conn. poge 4 of7
CRL.M.C. 4744/2016 & Crl.M.A. 19724/2016, 8050/2017
CHANAKYA BHUPEN CHAKPIAVARTI & ANR Petitioners
CHANAKYA BHUPEN CHAKPIAVARTI & ANR Petitioners
VERSUS
CRL.M.C. 4745/2016 & Crl.M.A. 19727/2016, 8049/2017
VERSUS
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
04.12.2018 On fifteen criminal complaints (CC Nos. 473729/2016, 473694/2016, 473728/2016, 473700/2016, 473702/2016, 473699/2016, 473695/2016, 473725/2016, 473701/2016, 473731/2016, 473726/2016, 473696/2016, 473730/2016, 473697/2016, 473698/2016) of therespondent, each alleging
04.12.2018 On fifteen criminal complaints (CC Nos. 473729/2016, 473694/2016, 473728/2016, 473700/2016, 473702/2016, 473699/2016, 473695/2016, 473725/2016, 473701/2016, 473731/2016, 473726/2016, 473696/2016, 473730/2016, 473697/2016, 473698/2016) of therespondent, each alleging
CRL.M.C. 4723/2016 (& conn. pcigs 5 of7 offence under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), qua different sets of cheques issued on behalf, and against the account, of
Amrapali Silicon City Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the company accused"), the Metropolitan Magistrate, by his orders dated 29.09.2016, 28.09.2016, 29.09.2016, 28.09.2016, 28.09.2016, 28.09.2016, 28.09.2016, 29.09.2016, 28.09.2016, 29.09.2016, 29.09.2016, 28.09.2016, 29.09.2016, 28.09.2016 and 28.09.2016 issued summons calling, amongst others, the petitioners herein as accused. The petitioners have been arrayed in the criminal complaint cases as third and fourth accused, they having been described as the directors ofthe said company accused, their liability being invoked with reference to Section 141 ofNI Act.
Though in the details and the background facts set out in the tabular form appended to the said criminal complaints it was indicated that the petitioners herein had sent reply through their counsel on 04.08.2016, denying the liability, this in answer to the demand notices that had been issued and served in the wake of the return of cheques unpaid, by the averments in the complaint, it was stated that despite the said notice, the accused persons, which would include the petitioners, had neither paid the cheque amounts nor sent any reply tothe statutory notice.
The petitioners have come up to this Court by these petitions invoking the inherent power and jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to seek quashing of the proceedings in the said fifteen cases against them primarily on the averments that they were at all points of time "non executive directors", being nominees of the investor company and, therefore, neither responsible for the day to day
Amrapali Silicon City Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the company accused"), the Metropolitan Magistrate, by his orders dated 29.09.2016, 28.09.2016, 29.09.2016, 28.09.2016, 28.09.2016, 28.09.2016, 28.09.2016, 29.09.2016, 28.09.2016, 29.09.2016, 29.09.2016, 28.09.2016, 29.09.2016, 28.09.2016 and 28.09.2016 issued summons calling, amongst others, the petitioners herein as accused. The petitioners have been arrayed in the criminal complaint cases as third and fourth accused, they having been described as the directors ofthe said company accused, their liability being invoked with reference to Section 141 ofNI Act.
Though in the details and the background facts set out in the tabular form appended to the said criminal complaints it was indicated that the petitioners herein had sent reply through their counsel on 04.08.2016, denying the liability, this in answer to the demand notices that had been issued and served in the wake of the return of cheques unpaid, by the averments in the complaint, it was stated that despite the said notice, the accused persons, which would include the petitioners, had neither paid the cheque amounts nor sent any reply tothe statutory notice.
The petitioners have come up to this Court by these petitions invoking the inherent power and jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to seek quashing of the proceedings in the said fifteen cases against them primarily on the averments that they were at all points of time "non executive directors", being nominees of the investor company and, therefore, neither responsible for the day to day
CRLM.C. 4723/2016 &conn. page 6of7 affairs ofthe company, nor having participated in the conduct of its business relevant to the issuance ofthe cheques in questions.
The learned counsel for the respondent, having taken instructions from the respondent (the complainant before the Metropolitan Magistrate) submitted that the complainant fairly concedes that the petitioners being
"non-executive directors" of the company accused, they could not be summoned with reference to 141 NI Act in the present cases. The respondent, thus, also concedes that the prayer in these petitions may be allowed and proceedings against the petitioners in the aforementioned criminal cases be quashed.
Given the above position, and the submissions, the petitions are allowed. The criminal complaints against the petitioners i.e. Chanakya
Bhupen Chakravarti and Hrushikesh Kar in the afore-mentioned complaint cases, pending on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate involving offences under 138 NI Act, are hereby quashed.
These petitions and the applications filed alongwith are disposed of in these terms.
Dasti under the signatures of Court Master.
DECEMBER 04, 2018 nk
The learned counsel for the respondent, having taken instructions from the respondent (the complainant before the Metropolitan Magistrate) submitted that the complainant fairly concedes that the petitioners being
"non-executive directors" of the company accused, they could not be summoned with reference to 141 NI Act in the present cases. The respondent, thus, also concedes that the prayer in these petitions may be allowed and proceedings against the petitioners in the aforementioned criminal cases be quashed.
Given the above position, and the submissions, the petitions are allowed. The criminal complaints against the petitioners i.e. Chanakya
Bhupen Chakravarti and Hrushikesh Kar in the afore-mentioned complaint cases, pending on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate involving offences under 138 NI Act, are hereby quashed.
These petitions and the applications filed alongwith are disposed of in these terms.
Dasti under the signatures of Court Master.
DECEMBER 04, 2018 nk
CRL.M.C. 4723/2016 &conn. page 7of7
JUDGMENT