TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 676
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntial relief of quashing of the aforesaid complaint cases filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act') read with Sections 141/142 of the NI Act. 2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the respondent/complainant that he is the sole proprietor of M/s Shree Krishna Grit Company which is engaged in the business of trading cement, maurang, bajri, river sands and grit. It is alleged that the accused company approached the company of the respondent and placed certain purchase orders with it. 3. It is alleged that the company of the respondent timely delivered the goods to the accused company, whereafter, it raised invoices amounting to Rs. 30,60,424/- against the accused company. 4. It is alleged that in discharge of its liability the accused company paid a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the company of the respondent through banking channels. The accused company, thereafter, issued 13 post-dated cheques for a total sum of Rs. 26,60,424/- all drawn on State Bank of Patiala. It is alleged that the directors of the accused company assured the respondent that the aforesaid cheques will be honored at the time of presentation. 5. It is alleged that when the res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned in the present case. He submitted that the petitioner was never the signatory to the disputed cheques. 13. He submitted that the petitioner ceased to be a director of the accused company at the time of presentation of the disputed cheques. He submitted that the petitioner had resigned from the accused company on 01.08.2016 which is prior to the date of presentation of the disputed cheques and therefore, he cannot be said to be responsible for the day-to-day operations of the accused company at the time of commission of the offence. 14. He further submitted that no specific averments have been made against the petitioner in the complaint filed by the respondent. He submitted that merely stating that the cheques will be honored at the time of presentation will not attract the rigors of Section 141 of the NI Act. 15. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the arguments are raised by the by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. 16. He submitted that when the accused company had placed the purchase order with the company of the respondent, the petitioner was still a director of the accused company and was responsible for its day-to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he signature are not disputed by the appellant, the balance of convenience at this stage is in favour of the complainant/prosecution, as the accused will have due opportunity to adduce defence evidence during the trial, to rebut the presumption. 18. Situated thus, to non-suit the complainant, at the stage of the summoning order, when the factual controversy is yet to be canvassed and considered by the trial court will not in our opinion be judicious. Based upon a prima facie impression, an element of criminality cannot entirely be ruled out here subject to the determination by the trial Court. Therefore, when the proceedings are at a nascent stage, scuttling of the criminal process is not merited." (emphasis supplied) 21. In line with the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. State (NCT of Delhi) (supra), thus, while exercising the power under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash a complaint at the pre-trial stage, it is pertinent for this Court to examine whether the factual defence is of such impeachable nature that the entire allegations made in the complaint is disproved. 22. The petitioner is implicated in the present case by virt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sible for its day-to-day affairs, lies upon the accused persons and the same is matter of trial. 24. In the present case, it is undisputed that the petitioner was a director at the time when the disputed cheques had been issued in favour of the respondent. It is only subsequent to the issuance of the disputed cheques that the petitioner had resigned from the accused company on 01.08.2016. 25. From a perusal of the record, there appears to be a discrepancy in regard to the designation of the petitioner. In FORM DIR-11 the petitioner is shown as an independent director, however, in FORM DIR-12 the petitioner is reflected as a director. Further, from a perusal of the master data dated 09.12.2016 as taken out by the respondent from the Registrar of Companies at the time of filing the complainant, it can be seen that the petitioner is still shown as a director of the accused company. While the veracity of such records will be tested during the course of trial, the same does casts a doubt over the case of the petitioner. 26. It must be borne in mind that Section 141 of the NI Act is a penal provision that creates vicarious liability for the accused. The petitioner has been impli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in charge of the company." (emphasis supplied) 29. Reference to the observations made in Gunmala Sales Private Ltd. Vs. Anu Mehta : AIR 2015 SC 1072 are crucial to conclude the issue at hand. It was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that once the basic averments have been made by the complainant in the complaint, alleging that the director was in charge of the company and was responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company, the proceedings against the accused person may commence. 30. In absence of any unimpeachable evidence to the contrary, the liability of the petitioner would remain at this stage and question in relation to the petitioner not being in-charge of the day-to-day affairs of the accused company at the relevant time becomes a factual dispute, which is not appropriate for determination under the powers conferred by Section 482 of the CrPC at this stage. 31. It is well-established that this Court should refrain from expressing any views on disputed questions of fact in proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC, as doing so could pre-empt the findings of the trial court. The relevant paragraphs of Gunmala Sales Private Ltd. Vs. Anu Mehta (supra) i....