AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 106
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation No. 764 of 2020 and Special Criminal Application No. 769 of 2020 respectively:- "9(b) To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction permitting the petitioner to amend the Criminal Case No. 7674 of 2015 pending before the Ld. Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, CBI Court No.1, Ahmedabad (Rural) and to permit the petitioner to add the respondent No.3 herein as an additionally numbered accused to the complaint. (c) To quash and set aside the order under Exhibit No. 66 dated 20.1.2020 passed by the Ld. Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, CBI Court No. 1, Ahmedabad (Rural); 9(b) To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction permitting the petitioner to amend the Criminal Case No. 7675 of 2015 pending before t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mportant to note here that the accused No.2 Swarn Mukeshbhai Gupta has preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 29748 of 2016 with Criminal Misc. Application No. 29751 of 2016 for quashing and setting aside the Criminal Case No. 7647 of 2015 and Criminal Case No. 7675 of 2015 pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad arising from the complaints filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The co-ordinate bench of this Court in the proceedings being Criminal Misc. Application No. 29748 of 2016 with Criminal Misc. Application No. 29751 of 2016 after considering the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Aneeta Handa vs. Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd. Reported in 2012 (5) SCC 661 quashed and set a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....adment of company as accused in the proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is permissible. He drew the attention of this Court in case of decisions rendered in (i) Arjundev Nagpal vs. State M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation reported in 2012 LawSuit (MP) 2327 (ii) S.R. Sukumar vs. S. Sunaad Raghuram reported in (2015) 9 Supreme Court Cases 609 (iii) Rajneesh Aggarwal vs. Amit J Bhalia reported in (2001) 1 Supreme Court Cases 631 (iv) Bilakchand Ganchand Co. vs. A Chinnaswami reported in (1999) 5 Supreme Court Cases 693 (v) Gena Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs. Somnath Guin reported in 2016 LawSuit(Cal) 178 and (vi) Sarabjit Singh vs. State of NCT of Delhi reported in 2018 LawSuit (Del) 5390. 7(i) In case of Arjunde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has further examined whether in a petition filed by the respondent under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court quashed the complaint on the ground that notice had been issued to the respondent in its individual capacity and not to the director of company. Thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the question whether the High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the director has been duly served with the notice for payment, the Hon'ble Apex Court quashed the order of the High Court and held that all the 3 requirements under clause (a), (b) and (c) of 138 of the N.I. Act has been complied with in the said case as the notice is duly served upon the director of the company. There is no such issue i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the matter. 7(vi) Lastly, learned Senior Counsel relied on the decision of Sarabjit Singh (supra) wherein Hon'ble Apex Court maintained the order of Metropolitan Magistrate summoning of the company accused additionally under Section 319 of Criminal Procedure Code. In the said case the company was accused but it was not summoned and therefore pending proceeding and with reference to liberty earlier granted by the Metropolitan Magistrate there to file fresh application to such effect to be filed at the appropriate stage, the complainant made application under Section 319 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking summoning of the company as the accused additionally which was allowed. In nutshell in the said case the company was already co-ac....