TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 911
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ure, 1973 ['Cr.P.C.'], the petitioner seeks setting aside of the two summoning orders both dated 29.05.2019 and two summoning orders both dated 23.04.2019 ['impugned orders'] passed by the learned MM, Dwarka Courts, Delhi ['Trial Court'] in CC Nos.18725, 18727, 13868 and 13869 of 2019 respectively filed by the respondent under Sections 138/141/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ['NI Act']. 2. Succinctly put, the respondent filed the aforesaid complaints stating that pursuant to one 'Amendatory Loan Agreement-Short Term Loan' dated 12.12.2018 ['Agreement'], the company Leel Electricals Limited/ accused no. 1 ['accused company'] issued two cheques bearing nos. 972039 and 9720340 dated 24.03.2019 and 25.03.2019 respectively, for an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 168 of the Companies Act, 2013 ['Companies Act'] filed before the Ministry of Corporate Affairs ['MCA'] qua the petitioner showing cessation of the petitioner's directorship/ employment with the accused company with effect from 08.01.2019. Further, pursuant to order dated 17.09.2024 passed by this Court, the petitioner also filed Letter dated 25.11.2024 issued to him by the Assistant Registrar of Companies, Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur as proof of date of uploading of the said Form DIR-12 being 25.01.2019, which was also approved on the same day. 4. Learned counsel further submitted that even prior to his resignation, the petitioner was only looking after the AC manufacturing plant located in Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh, and being a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, he submitted that since the cheques were issued by a company, vicarious liability thereunder would be attracted, and as such, the present petitions are liable to be dismissed. 7. This Court has heard learned counsels for the parties as also carefully perused the documents on record as also the judgments cited at Bar. 8. When it comes to offences under the NI Act, including Section 138 thereof whereunder the complaints in the present case have been filed, Section 141^1 is the governing provision qua offences committed by companies. 9. The parameters, scope and extent of the liability of individuals thereunder has been crystallised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of pronouncements, starting from S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....other specific allegation(s) pertaining to him therein. In fact, barring simpliciter statement(s) of a general nature against the petitioner, the whole complaints are utterly silent qua him. Moreover, it is also an admitted position that not even one of the cheques were signed by the petitioner. 11. The above evidently fall short of the requirement of specific averments in the complaints under Section 138 NI Act before a Court of law to invoke Section 141 against the petitioner, particularly, in view of what has been clearly laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court repeatedly and enumerated hereinabove in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra), National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. (supra), Central Bank of India (supra) and Saroj Pandey ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as continuance of the proceedings qua the petitioner would be wholly vexatious. At the end of the day, it is trite that issuance of summons is a serious process which ought not to be undertaken mechanically, routinely and without any application of mind, and in such cases, this Court is called upon to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice [Pooja Ravinder Devidasani (supra), Saroj Pandey (supra)]. 15. Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside qua the petitioner herein. Resultantly, CC Nos.18725, 18727, 13868 and 13869 of 2019 filed by the respondent are also quashed qua the petitioner. 16. The present petitions along with the pen....