TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 1215
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nvestments Private Limited and A1 stood as Guarantor for redemption and repurchase of the debentures by M/s.Srivari Investments Private Limited. Towards redemption of the debentures, A1 company/M/s.Synergy Financial Exchange Limited, issued cheque bearing No.844272, dated 04.03.1998, for a sum of Rs. 13,57,331/-, drawn on State Bank of India, Travancore, Chennai. When the respondent presented the cheque for collection in the bank viz., Canara Bank, Vadapalani, it was returned for the reason that "Exceeds Arrangements" on 02.09.1998. The dishonour of cheque was informed to the respondent by the bank on 03.09.1998. Thereafter, the respondent issued statutory notice on 11.09.1998, but the accused failed to pay the cheque amount. Hence, the res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....resh petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4.In order to substantiate his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following citations:- * S.M.S Pharmaceuticals Limited Versus Neeta Bhalla and another reported in (2005) 8 SCC 89. * National Small Industries Corporation Limited Versus Harmeet Singh Paintal and another reported in (2010) 3 SCC 330. * Anita Malhotra Versus Apparel Export Promotion Council and another reported in (2012) 1 SCC 520. * Ashoke Mal Bafna Versus Upper India Steel Manufacturing and Engineering Company Limited reported in (2018) 14 SCC 202. * State represented by DSP, SB CID, Chennai Versus K.V.Rajendran and others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 673. * Anil Khadkiwala Versus State (Governme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the complaint filed by the respondent, it is seen that except paragraph No.7, nowhere any averments against the petitioner/Director. In paragraph No.7 of the complaint, it is stated as follows:- 7.The Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth accused are incharge of the management and affairs of the First Accused and the cheque was returned dishonoured only with their consent and connivance. 7.In this case, the statutory notice was not served on the petitioner, since the petitioner was resigned from A1 company on 01.08.1998 and the same was accepted in the board meeting, which was held on 08.09.1998. To prove the resignation, the petitioner submitted Form 32, dated 11.09.1998 issued by the Registrar of Companies, Chennai. Admittedly, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....1998 and thereafter, the same was filed on 11.09.1998. The cheque was presented on 02.09.1998 and the same was returned on 03.09.1998. Coming to know about the return of cheque, the petitioner hurriedly resigned from A1 company and pre-dated his resignation and filed Form 32 to escape from the prosecution. 11.The petitioner is one of the Promotee Director along with the other accused. Hence, he cannot now claim that he was was not incharge of the affairs of A1 company. The points agitated by the petitioner are to be decided only during the trial. With regard to quashing of the proceedings against A2 and A6 in Crl.O.P.No.17566 of 2001, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that one Mr.M.Kempraj, learned counsel was appointed as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enthol India Ltd. [(2001) 10 SCC 218 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1038] was a case under the Negotiable Instruments Act. It was found that the allegations in the complaint did not in express words or with reference to the allegations contained therein make out a case that at the time of commission of the offence, the appellant was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. It was held that the requirement of Section 141 was not met and the complaint against the accused was quashed. Similar was the position in Katta Sujatha v. Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd. [(2002) 7 SCC 655 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 151] This was a case of a partnership. It was found that no allegations were contained in the complaint regarding the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on for the offence has been laid in the complaint, it should not be quashed. All the same, it is also to be remembered that it is the duty of the court to discharge the accused if taking everything stated in the complaint as correct and construing the allegations made therein liberally in favour of the complainant, the ingredients of the offence are altogether lacking. The present case falls in this category as would be evident from the facts noticed hereinafter." It was further observed: (SCC pp. 18-19, para 6) "6. ... The criminal liability has been fastened on those who, at the time of the commission of the offence, were in charge of and were responsible to the firm for the conduct of the business of the firm. These may be sleeping....