https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763940 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763940 Seeking quashing of Criminal Complaint - Dishonour of Cheque - continuation of legal proceedings commenced by the company in its former name by its new name - inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing the proceedings. Continuation of legal proceedings commenced by the company in its former name by its new name - HELD THAT:- It is relevant to note that the inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 of the CrPC ought to be exercised sparingly especially when the matter is at the stage of issuance of summons as the same has the effect of scuttling the proceedings without the parties having an opportunity to adduce the relevant evidence. The Hon ble Apex Court, in the case of Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. State (NCT of Delhi) [ 2022 (4) TMI 1434 - SUPREME COURT] , adverting to a catena of judgments, had underscored the parameters for exercising inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings at the stage of the summoning order. In the present case, apart from raising an argument in relation to the cheques in dispute being given as security, the petitioners have sought to challenge the complaints essentially on the ground that the same are not maintainable by virtue of the same being filed in the old name of the complainant company - It is argued that even though the name of the complainant company was changed on 28.05.2018, however, the complaints were subsequently filed in the erstwhile name in June, 2018. In the case of MUNISH KUMAR GUPTA VERSUS M/S MITTAL TRADING COMPANY [ 2024 (4) TMI 1212 - SC ORDER] , the Hon ble Apex Court had set aside the order whereby the concerned High Court had permitted the complainant to amend the date in the complaint by observing that if such amendment was not permitted, the same will be fatal to the case of the complainant. In the said case, the complainant therein had claimed that the error in the date of the cheque in dispute in the evidence as well as the complaint was merely typographical in nature. The Hon ble Apex Court observed that the date of the cheque is a relevant aspect as the same was instrumental in determining whether the issue of notice was within the time frame as provided under the NI Act and as to whether there was sufficient balance in the account of the issuer on the date. In view of the same, it was held that the amendment as sought for was not justified. While a bald averment is made that grave prejudice would be caused to the petitioners if the substitution of the new name of the complainant company is allowed, however, in the opinion of this Court, mere use of the old name of the complainant company is not a relevant aspect as the same is not likely to have any effect on the merits of the case. No cogent argument is made in relation to how the change in name will affect the case against the petitioners or as to how their defence would be hampered by such a change - It is also relevant to note that the mere change in name does not alter or affect the rights of the company. Furthermore, the agreement between the complainant company and the accused company is not disputed. The change of the name of the complainant company is merely formal in nature and the same can be easily cured. The same also has no effect on the original nature of the complaint. Application of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing the proceedings - HELD THAT:- It is incumbent on this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to ensure substantial justice. In light of the same, considering that the petitioners have failed to show as to how they will be gravely prejudiced by a mere correction in the name of the company, quashing of the criminal proceedings merely on account of a technical error at this junction, when the signatures on the cheques in dispute have not been disputed and the claim of the complainant company has not been adjudicated on merits, would be unmerited and it will frustrate the ends of justice - considering that the complaints have been pending since the year 2018, this Court considers it apposite to request the learned Trial Court to expedite the proceedings. The present petitions are dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 16 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530