2018 (8) TMI 2077

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rivate Ltd. (accused no. 1), Lt. Col. H.S. Bedi (accused no. 2) and Ms. Maninder Bedi (accused no. 4). The allegations in the case concerned a cheque bearing no. 933743 dated 28.02.2013 for Rs. 52,64,384/- which had been issued under the signatures of Lt. Col. H.S. Bedi (second accused) against the account of M/s. Cedar Infonet Pvt. Ltd. (first accused) which, upon presentation by the petitioner, was dishonoured. It was alleged that a notice of demand was issued to all the five persons, arrayed as accused on 05.03.2013, to which there was no response, nor any payment received and consequently the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 had been committed. 2. The Metropolitan Magistrate, after preliminary inquiry, issu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... has been properly made out for criminal prosecution also of the respondents herein and consequently the view taken by the revisional court is not correct. 5. Per contra, the respondents through counsel, referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Neeta Bhalla & Anr. (2007) 4 SCC 70; National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. vs. Harmeet Singh Paintal & Anr. (2010) 3 SCC 330; Central Bank of India vs. Asian Global Limited & Ors. (2010) 11 SCC 203; N.K. Wahi vs. Shekhar Singh & Ors. (2007) 9 SCC 481 and Saroj Kumar Poddar vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (2007) 3 SCC 693 and of the learned single Judge of this Court in Chintan Arvind Kapadia & Anr. Vs. State & Anr. ILR (2013) III Delhi 2135, have submit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ia, to the decisions of the Supreme Court in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals (supra) and Gunmala Sales (P) Ltd. (supra) and Standard Chartered Bank (supra). The law on the subject, as declared in the authoritative pronouncement referred to above was culled out in Jwala Devi Enterprises P. Ltd. (supra) thus: "The guiding principles with reference to Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which are now well settled by judicial pronouncements, some of which have been noted above, may be summarised thus:- (i) It is only those persons who are in charge of or responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the time of commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 who can be subjected to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mpany accused, he being in charge of or responsible for the conduct of its business cannot get the complaint quashed by the High Court by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 merely on the ground that no particulars as to his role have been set out in the complaint; and (vii). The person who has been summoned as an accused for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by invoking the provision contained in Section 141 may persuade the High Court to quash the process in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by furnishing "some sterling incontrovertible material or acceptable circumstances" substantiating his contention that he ....