2018 (1) TMI 745

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....c Ltd., company, the accused 2 and 3 are its authorized signatories, the 4th accused is the Managing Director and the 5th accused is the Director and they are responsible persons for the conduct and day to day affairs of the said company. The accused had credits with the complainant by way of Hosiery Yarn. In the said business transaction the accused have to pay a sum of Rs. 59,02,620/- to the complainant. For the above said amount due, the accused No. 2 & 3 have jointly signed and issued 3 cheques bearing Nos.021117, 021144, 021145 all dated 21.05.2005 for Rs. 59,02,620/- payable to the complainant, on behalf of accused No.1, with the consent of accused No.4 & 5. 2. The further case of the complainant/1st respondent herein is that the abo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he signatures of the petitioner in the alleged cheques itself was fabricated one even after he was relieved from the service. The complaint against the petitioner has not fulfilled the terms and tenor of the Section 141 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Hence for all the above reasons, the petitioner prays to quash the above C.C. 5. I have heard M/s.A.B.Fathima Sulthana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Baskar, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and perused the records. 6. It is the first and foremost contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that he was only an employee of the 1st accused company and was working for salary and therefore he has nothing to do with the business of the 1st accused company. That apart....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... complaint against by petitioner herein is liable to be quashed. 9. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for the 1st respondent would contend that the documents relied on by the petitioner are private documents and the same are not public documents and therefore contented that the documents relied on by the petitioner cannot be looked into as they are private documents and the same being based on factual matrix which involves adducing evidence at the time of trial. The other submission of the Learned Counsel for the respondent is that the contention of the petitioner regarding his signatures were fabricated in the cheque after he was relived from the service is also a matter of trial and the same can be decided only after full-fledged trial. It....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rson liable to face prosecution, virtually every officer/employee of a company without exception could be impleaded as accused by merely making an averment that at the time when the offence was committed they were in charge of and were responsible to the company for the conduct and business of the company. That would be absurd and not intended under the Act. As the trauma, harassment and hardship of criminal proceedings in such cases, may be more serious than the ultimate punishment, it is not proper to subject all and sundry to be impleaded as accused in a complaint against a company, even when the requirements of Section 141 of the Act are not fulfilled. 12. In fact the above judgment is in favour of the petitioner herein. Therefore, in ....