2017 (5) TMI 1847

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ya Lakhotia against M/s Rangoli Projects Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Sanjay Gambhir (in short 'M/s Rangoli Projects') under Section 138 read with Sections 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In the said complaint, neither Sanjay Gambhir in his personal capacity nor Tarun Kumar were impleaded as accused. This Court need not go into the allegations in the complaint as the same are not material for the purpose of decision of the present petitions. 2. On the said complaint, learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 9th April, 2012 took cognizance and issued summons against the accused i.e. M/s Rangoli Projects. However, on a process fee being filed by respondent No. 2 for issuance of summons both against the compan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mpany has appointed Sh. Tarun Kumar to represent in the present trial. Although, the present case has been filed against the company whose director is Sanjay Gambhir but as per Section 305 of Cr. P.C, it is choice of the complainant to appoint a representative and not that of the accused. Hence, accused Sanjay Gambhir's presence is not required in the present case. In fact, he was never summoned in the present case. Needless to mention, proceedings against him stands dropped as his appearance was due to a bonafide mistake. Be listed for cross-examination of the complainant after moving an application U/s 145(2) by the accused for 20.09.2014." 3. As noted in the order, Tarun Kumar, the petitioner in Crl. M.C. 76/2017 was appointe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....agistrate vide order dated 11th December, 2015 sought to recall its order dated 9th April,2012 wherein summons were issued only against the company M/s Rangoli Projects and 21st July, 2014 clarifying that Sanjay Gambhir was never summoned as an accused which is impermissible in law. Learned counsels for the petitioners further submit that learned Additional Sessions Judge vide the impugned order dated 15th November, 2014 permitted respondent No.2 to file applications before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate adversely affecting the rights of the petitioners without issuing them notice or hearing them. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 on the other hand contends that inadvertently respondent no.2 did not implead Sanjay Gambhir as an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mistake and the proceedings qua him are dropped. 8. The second limb of argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Additional Sessions Judge could not have granted liberty to respondent No.2 to file an application and add additional accused thereby permitting amendment of the accused in the complaint is required to be allowed on two counts. 9. Firstly, the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge was in non-compliance of the decision of the Supreme Court reported as (2012) 10 SCC 517 Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia & Anr. Vs. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel & Ors. which categorically held that while exercising revisional powers the Sessions Court or the High Court under Sections 399 or 401 Cr. P.C. cannot pass....