Dismissal of Petitioner's Plea in Complaint Cases under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act

The court dismissed the petitioner's plea to quash summoning orders in complaint cases under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner's resignation timing and involvement in the company's affairs raised doubts, requiring further examination at trial. The court emphasized the need for specific averments to establish vicarious liability under Section 141 and allowed the petitioner to present his case before the trial court. The judgment was to be promptly uploaded on the court's website.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of summoning orders in complaint cases under Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Setting aside of orders dismissing applications seeking discharge by the petitioner.
3. Determination of petitioner's role and liability under Section 141 of the NI Act.

Summary:

Quashing of Summoning Orders:
The petitioner sought the quashing of summoning orders in five complaint cases instituted under Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging dishonor of cheques issued by the accused company. The complainant company had advanced loans to the accused company, which defaulted on repayments, leading to the issuance of dishonored cheques.

Setting Aside Orders Dismissing Discharge Applications:
The petitioner also sought to set aside orders dismissing his applications for discharge in the complaint cases. The petitioner argued that he was not in charge of or responsible for the conduct of the business of the accused company at the time the offence was committed, as he had resigned before the cheques were dishonored.

Petitioner's Role and Liability:
The petitioner contended that he joined the accused company as a Director on 01.06.2016 and resigned on 22.08.2016, the same day the cheques were issued. The cheques were dishonored on 23.08.2016 and 01.09.2016. The complainant argued that the petitioner was involved in the business affairs even before his official appointment and continued after his resignation. The court noted that the petitioner's resignation was communicated to the Registrar of Companies on 23.08.2016, after the cheques were dishonored.

Legal Provisions and Precedents:
The court referred to Sections 138 and 141 of the NI Act and relevant judgments, including National Small Industries Corp. Ltd. v. Harmeet Singh Paintal and S.P. Mani & Mohan Dairy v. Dr. Snehalatha Elangovan, to determine the liability of directors in cheque dishonor cases. The court emphasized that vicarious liability under Section 141 requires specific averments and cannot be presumed.

Court's Conclusion:
The court found that the petitioner's involvement in the company's affairs and the timing of his resignation raised questions that could not be conclusively determined at this stage. The material presented by the petitioner was not sufficient to quash the proceedings. The petitions were dismissed, allowing the petitioner to raise his contentions before the trial court.

Final Observations:
The court clarified that the observations made were solely for deciding the present petitions and should not influence the trial court's decisions on merits. The judgment was to be uploaded on the website forthwith.

---