Back
2004(1) Bankmann 222 (P. & H.)
Punjab and Haryana High Court
S.S. Saron, J.
Inder Sehgal — Petitioner
versus
M/s. Thakar Petro
Chemical Ltd. — Respondent
Criminal Misc. Nos. 20830-M and 20872-M of 2001
Decided on 13.8.2003
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. I.P.S. Doabia, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Substance of allegations made in complaint is to be read as a whole to attract Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act 1881—Section 141—Ingredients of—Substance of allegations to be read as a whole. (Para 14)
(B) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 138, 141—Dishonour of cheque—Offences by companies—Incharge of or responsible for conduct of business—No allegation against petitioner nor a substance of allegations read as a whole fulfils ingredients of Section 141(1)—Even summoning order in the two cases does not specify any specific role of the petitioner—Criminal proceedings against petitioner wholly unwarran-ted—Complaint and summoning order qua petitioner quashed.
Held: There is no allegation against the petitioner nor the substance of the allegations read as a whole answers or fulfils the requirements of the ingredients of the provision of Section 141(1) of the Act so as to proceed against him. The allegation that has been made by the complainant is to the effect that Rajinder Singh Mann and Surinder Katyal alias Raju Katyal approached the complainant company at its Sirsa office and wanted to do business and represented that Satya Pal Suri and Inder Sehgal (petitioner) were the other partners of their firm. This by itself is not sufficient to proceed against the petitioner. Even in the summoning orders in the two cases no specific role has been adverted to in respect of the petitioner by the Trial Court. In my view, the initiation of criminal proceeding against the petitioner is wholly unwarranted. (Para 18)
S.S. Saron J.— This Order will dispose of Criminal Misc. No. 20830-M of 2001 and Criminal Misc. No. 20872-M of 2001 as they are between the same parties and the facts are similar.
2. In this Criminal Petition, the petitioner has sought the quashing of the complaint dated 12.5.1998 (Annexure P-1), the summoning Order dated 3.5.1999 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa and all consequential proceedings in pursuance thereof.
3. The respondent M/s. Thakar Petro Chemicals Ltd. filed a complaint dated 12.5.1998 (Annexure P-1) against five accused including the petitioner Inder Sehgal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). It was alleged that the complainant entered into business with M/s. Kay Ess Traders, which purchased goods worth more than Rs. 12.00 lacs from the complainant. A sum of more than Rs. 5.00 lacs was paid by M/s. Kay Ess Traders through cheques and Bank Drafts on different dates.Surinder Katyal alias Raju Katyal issued a cheque bearing No. 200164 for a sum of Rs. 4,65,174.37 in favour of the complainant drawn on Jammu Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Jammu. The said cheque was not honoured by the said Bankers of M/s. Kay Ess Traders for which the complaint was filed and the petitioner has been summoned.
Criminal Misc. 20872-M of 2001.
4. In this Criminal Misc. petition, the petitioner has sought the quashing of the complaint dated 25.4.1998/7.2.2000 (Annexure P-1), the summoning Order dated 3.5.1999 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa and all consequential proceedings in pursuance thereof.
5. It is stated that the complainant filed a complaint dated 25.4.1998/7.2.2000 (Annexure P-1) under Section 138 of the Act. The complainant-respondent alleged that it entered into business with M/s. Kay Ess Traders and the said firm purchased goods worth more than Rs. 12.00 lacs from the complainant. Further a sum of more than Rs. 5.00 lacs was paid by M/s. Kay Ess Traders through cheques and Bank Drafts on different dates. On 10.2.1998 Surinder Katyal alias Raju Katyal issued Cheque No. 200184 for Rs. 50,000/- in favour of complainant-respondent, which was drawn on Jammu Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Jammu in their Account No. 238. The said cheque was not honoured for which the complainant filed the aforesaid complaint against the petitioner and four other accused.
6. In both the cases, it is stated that the petitioner has been roped in merely by mentioning his name in the complaint alongwith others as a partner. It is stated that the chque was issued by Surinder Katyal alias Raju Katyal, which is evident from a reading of the complaint. Besides, M/s. Kay Ess Traders is a proprietorship firm which is owned by Surinder Katyal alias Raju Katyal from the very beginning and the petitioner was never a partner of this firm and even the complainant has not produced any partnership deed.
7. Notice in both the cases were issued to the complainant-respondent who has filed its reply. It is stated in the reply that the averments as made by the petitioner are incorrect. The complainant-respondent has placed on record Annexure R-1, which is an “Undertaking Against Bank Guarantee” given by M/s. Kay Ess Traders which depicts the petitioner as a partner in the said firm. The copy of the said undertaking is exhibited on record in the proceedings before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa. Therefore, it is stated that the petitioner is equally liable for bouncing of the cheques in question.
8. I have heard Mr. I.P.S. Doabia, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sandeep Goel, learned Counsel for the respondent and with their assistance gone through the records of the case.
9. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in no way liable for the alleged offence under Section 138 of the Act as he has nothing to do with the firm M/s. Kay Ess Traders. The learned Counsel has also plac
