TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 836
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... she has filed one complaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against one Mr. Rang Prakash Paul, Director of S.S.V.B. Business India Limited. He submits that at the time of institution of the complaint the Court concerned has recorded the verification of the complainant and after verifying and scrutinizing all the documents placed along with the copy of the compliant, the Court concerned thought it fit to issue process against the accused person and thereafter passed order under Section 204 Cr.P.C. The process issued by the Court concerned has been duly served to the accused person and thereafter the petitioner - complainant came to know that there was inadvertent mistake committed by her at the time of institution of complaint and she failed to join company as well as other persons who are connected with the commission of crime and members of the Board of Directors of the company and therefore the company as well as those persons are required to be joined as party in the proceedings. Therefore, an application is preferred to amend the cause title of the complaint by impleading those persons as accused in an ongoing pending criminal proceedings. Learned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmits that the said application is not entertained by the Court concerned on the aspect that specific averment has not been made by the petitioner - original complainant against those persons at the time of instituting complaint and secondly before institution of the complaint, basic, essential and requisite requirement under Section 138(B) of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuance of show cause notice to the proposed accused persons is not fulfilled. Learned advocate Mr. Purohit has submitted that it is an admitted position of fact that those proposed accused persons are the Directors of the company but they are not the signatories of the cheques and therefore no specific demand is required to be made to them as notice is already issued to the company before institution of the complaint and therefore basic and essential ingredient of issuing notice under Section 138(B) of the N. I. Act to the accused person is fulfilled and therefore the learned Court ought to have taken into consideration the said fact while passing the impugned order. However, the learned Trial Court has committed an error in not appreciating the fact that petitioner has already issued requisite notice to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons can be joined and prosecuted as accused persons after affording opportunity of hearing to the person concerned. However, in the instant case, it is an admitted position of fact that after the institution of the complaint, petitioner realized that she has committed mistake by not joining certain persons, who were the Directors of the company and the company as accused without making specific allegations and accusations against the proposed accused persons and therefore it can be said that the said application is premature and cannot be decided at this stage. He further submits that so as to invoke the provisions of Section 141 of N.I. Act, the petitioner has to prove that the said proposed accused persons were in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business at the time of offence. Learned APP Mr. Chintan Dave submits that therefore the learned Trial Court as well as learned Revisional Court have passed just, fair and reasonable orders based upon sound principle of law and therefore they are not required to be interfered with by this Court at this stage. Learned APP Mr. Chintan Popat further submits that if this Hon'ble Court would make cursory gla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....said revision application has also been dismissed by the Court concerned. Therefore, present petition is preferred assailing both the orders passed by the learned Trial Court as well as learned Revisional Court. 9. Before delving into the issue involved in the present matter, I would like to refer to and rely upon the observations made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/S. Khizer Impex Pvt. Ltd. through Mohammed Hadi Karamhusian (supra), wherein, in similar set of facts, the Court observed and held as under: "2. Brief facts leading to present petitions can be summarized thus. 3. The petitioner, complainant of Criminal Case No. 7675 of 2015 and Criminal Case No. 7674 of 2015 filed proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and has made prayer to add name of respondent No.3 i.e. M/s. B.M. Infrastructure Industries Pvt. Ltd. and further name of said company be shown as the original accused No.3 in the said criminal cases. Learned Trial Judge vide order dated 20.1.2020 passed below Application Exhibit No. 72 and 66 of the petitioner complainant refused to permit and to add the said company as accused No.3 in the complaints filed under Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....endment to be made. Looking to the facts and nature of amendment allowed by trial Court in case of S.R. Sukumar (supra) was upheld by the Apex Court. No such case exists in the matter. Therefore, amendment sought is not simple infirmity which can be cured by means of proposed amendment and therefore the said case would not apply to the facts of present case. 7(iii) Third decision cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is in the matter of Rajneesh Aggarwal (supra). In the said case Hon'ble Apex Court has concerned with object and purpose of notice under Section 138 of N.I. Act and 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eady co-accused in the original complaint but it was not summoned and on such factual premises Hon'ble Apex Court maintained the order of Metropolitan Magistrate. It is not such case here. 8. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of each case cited at bar by learned Senior Counsel Mr. S.V. Raju in various cases of Hon'ble Apex Court or other High Courts, the amendment of the nature sought for in present petitions, cannot be permitted and therefore this Court is not inclined to entertain present petitions, as no infirmity or illegality is noticed in the impugned orders. 9. Under the circumstances, present petitions being devoid of merits, both on law and facts, stand rejected at admission stage. 10. Thus, from the aforesaid observations made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, it is clear that the Coordinate Bench has, after considering various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, held that the amendment of the nature sought for in the said petitions cannot be permitted and ultimately rejected both the petitions. 11. It is also found out from the record that the procedure adopted by the present petitioner is, prima facie, found to be against the sett....