TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 533
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) has been preferred by accused/petitioners. 2. Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta, learned advocate for the petitioners at the outset submits that he is not pressing this application for petitioner no. 1 and 2 but he is pressing this application for petitioner no. 3, Prem Ratan Lahoty. Mr. Gupta contended that petitioner no. 1 and 2 are the Directors of M/s. Ganapati Balaji Mills Private Limited and the opposite party is a non banking finance private limited dealing with the business of real estate. On 14.12.2015, the petitioners got a demand notice from the advocate of the opposite party due to alleged non-payment of loan amount of Rs. 50 lakhs which was allegedly taken by the said company on 12.7.2012....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with a mala fide intent. 4. Petitioner no. 3, Prem Ratan Lahoty has filed one form no. DIR-11 as annexure and he pointed out that from column no. 4A and 4B, it is clear that said Prem Ratan Lahoty resigned from the M/s. Ganapati Balaji Mills Private Limited on 6.7.2012. 5. On the contrary, the opposite party filed one affidavit containing Form DIR-12 and pointed out that as on 30.5.2016, the said Prem Ratan Lahoty was shown as director of the said company and the column relating to the resignation date (as on that date) is lying blank. Moreover, referring a letter he also pointed out that said petitioner no. 3, gave notice of resignation of Directorship on 30.5.2016 contending that his directorship with the company stands seized with eff....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccused that the accusation against accused cannot stand. In such a case in order to prevent injustice or abuse of process, it is incumbent upon High Court to look into those documents, which have a bearing in the matter, even at the initial stage. 9. Here the allegations in the complaint is clear from paragraph 9 (serial No. should be 12) and other paragraphs coupled with documents like DIR -12 and notice mentioning date of resignation, prima facie discloses that at the time when the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act was committed, all the three petitioners are in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company as alleged in paragraph 4 of the complaint. When the specific allegation in compla....