Amul Urhwareshe Vs. State (Nct of Delhi) and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....be effective from 10.09.2000. it cannot be said that this information was manipulated or was pre-dated as the same was documented. atul kohli relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent no.2, therefore, does not apply to the facts of the present case.5. since the petitioner was not the director of the company on the date when the offence was allegedly committed, he cannot be prosecuted by taking aid of section 141 of the n.i.act. a reference in this connection may be made to a judgment of this court in m.l. gupta v. dcm financial services limited 167 (2010) dlt 428.in similar circumstances, the complaints were quashed by the delhi high court in criminal mc nos.1317/2009, 1318/2009, 1319/2009, 1320/2009, 1321/2009 & 1322/2009.6. i find no reason to take a different view. thus, the petitions preferred by the petitioner are allowed and criminal complaint case nos.2106/1 of 2003, 895/12 of 2005, 901/12 of 2004 and 897/12 of 2004 and the proceedings arising there from as against the petitioner are quashed.7. pending applications also stand disposed of. (g.p. mittal) judge january 08 2013 vk

Judgment:

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:

8. h January, 2013 + CRL. M.C. 1050/2012 AMUL URHWARESHE Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Vishal Gosain Adv. with Mr. Harsh Bora, Adv. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State. Mr. Ashok Anand Adv. with Ms. Priya Pathania, Adv. for R-2. CRL. M.C. 3071/2012 AMUL URHWARESHE Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Vishal Gosain Adv. with Mr. Harsh Bora, Adv. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State. Mr. Ashok Anand Adv. with Ms. Priya Pathania, Adv. for R-2. CRL. M.C. 3072/2012 AMUL URHWARESHE Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Vishal Gosain Adv. with Mr. Harsh Bora, Adv. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State. Mr. Ashok Anand Adv. with Ms. Priya Pathania, Adv. for R-2. CRL. M.C. 3073/2012 AMUL URHWARESHE Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Vishal Gosain Adv. with Mr. Harsh Bora, Adv. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State. Mr. Ashok Anand Adv. with Ms. Priya Pathania, Adv. for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.

(ORAL) 1. By virtue of these four Petitions, the Petitioner seeks quashing of the four Complaints titled M/s. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd. (IREDA) v. M/s. Enbee Infrastructure Ltd. Etc. qua him on the ground that the dishonoured cheques were dated 31.03.2005; and the Petitioner resigned from the Directorship of M/s. Enbee Infrastructure Ltd. on 31.08.2000 and information in this regard was sent to the Registrar of Companies (ROC) on 10.09.2000, thus the Petitioner cannot be said to be guilty of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the N.I.Act).

2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner also relies on the order dated 24.01.2011 passed by A.K.Pathak, J.

in Criminal M.C. No.1366/2010 and dated 11.04.2012 passed by Pratibha Rani, J.

in Criminal M.C. No.1926.2011 where in similar circumstances the complaint against the Petitioner was quashed.

3. The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 opposes the Petition on the ground that a perusal of Form No.32, certified copy of which has been placed on record shows that its effective date was only 06.04.2004. He urges that the Petitioners liability arose much before 06.04.2004 and mere recording in Column No.6 of Form No.32 that the Petitioner resigned as Director w.e.f. 31.08.2000 would not be sufficient to absolve him of his liability under the N.I.Act. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 places reliance on Atul Kohli & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2005) 127 Comp. Cas. 237 (P&H).

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has taken me through the certified copy of Form No.32 and also the receipt through which the information regarding resignation was communicated to the ROC. The demand draft for `1,000/- for lodging an information regarding date of change in appointment was prepared on 03.09.2000 and the information was lodged on 10.09.2000. Therefore, the information regarding Petitioners resignation would be effective from 10.09.2000. It cannot be said that this information was manipulated or was pre-dated as the same was documented. Atul Kohli relied upon by the learned counsel for Respondent No.2, therefore, does not apply to the facts of the present case.

5. Since the Petitioner was not the Director of the Company on the date when the offence was allegedly committed, he cannot be prosecuted by taking aid of Section 141 of the N.I.Act. A reference in this connection may be made to a judgment of this Court in M.L. Gupta v. DCM Financial Services Limited 167 (2010) DLT 428.In similar circumstances, the complaints were quashed by the Delhi High Court in Criminal MC Nos.1317/2009, 1318/2009, 1319/2009, 1320/2009, 1321/2009 & 1322/2009.

6. I find no reason to take a different view. Thus, the Petitions preferred by the Petitioner are allowed and Criminal Complaint Case Nos.2106/1 of 2003, 895/12 of 2005, 901/12 of 2004 and 897/12 of 2004 and the proceedings arising there from as against the Petitioner are quashed.

7. Pending Applications also stand disposed of. (G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE JANUARY 08 2013 vk