SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

A.K.SIKRI
J. N. Bhatia & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
State & Anr. – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioners in Crl.M.C. No. 240/2005:Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Singh and Ms. Manjit Walia, Advocates.
For the Petitioners Crl. M.C. Nos. 135, 136 and 144 of 2005:Ms. Girija Varma, Mr. Vivek Sood and Mr. Manoj Arora, Advocates.
For the Petitioners:Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Mr. Ajay Bhargawa and Ms. Vanita Bhargava, Mr. K.K. Sud, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jaswinder S. Nischal, Mr. Ravi Kant Chadha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajpal Sing, Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Chaudhary, Mr. Pratap Shanker and Mr. Sri Singh, Mr. Rajneesh Chopra, Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rahul Dhawan and Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 2:Mr. U.L. Watwani, APP and Mr. D.D. Singh, Advocate.
For the State in Crl. M.C. No. 240/2005 : Mr. Anil Soni, APP.
For the Respondent (S/C):Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Advocate.
For the Respondent in Crl.M.C. No 2838 and 3831/2004:Mr. Girdhar Govind, Mr. Avnish Kumar and Ms. N.N. Firdausi, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 1:Mr. Rakesh Malhotra and Mr. Vineet Malhotra Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 2:Mr. Gurkamal, Mr Ajay and Mr. A. Srivastava, Advocates.
For the State :Mr. Gagan Malhotra and Mr. Baldev Malik, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 2:Ms. Seema Gulati, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

A.K. Sikri, J.— All these cases relate to complaints under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the ‘NI Act’) based on dishonour of cheques. Further, in all these cases, the cheques are issued by and on behalf of a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act or a partnership firm. The complainants, in addition to making the said companies/firms as principal accused, have also impleaded certain other persons in the capacity of their being Directors or partners, as the case may be. Again, in all these cases, some of those Directors or partners have come up and have filed these petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of summoning orders against them. Plea is also common in these cases. It is either contended they ceased to be the Directors/partners before the cheque(s) was/were presented which got dishonoured and, therefore, since they had no concern with the company/firm as on the date of dishonour of the cheque(s), they could not be arraigned as accused persons. Or else, their contention is that they are not the persons who were incharge and responsible for the business of the company or the firm and,














































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top