IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
Triton Ratial Private Limited and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
State of Gujarat and Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Misc. Application (for Quashing & Set Aside FIR/Order) No. 24863 of 2016 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 24868 of 2016
Decided On : 04-04-2017
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482 -Negotiable Instruments Act -Section 138 - Companys Act, 1956 -Issues raised in both the captioned applications are the same, the parties are same and the questions of law raised also being the same, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. By these two applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants - original accused Nos. 1, 4 and 5 seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying for quashing of the proceedings of the Criminal Cases Nos. 1213 of 2016 and 341 of 2016 respectively filed in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act) at Ahmedabad arising from the two complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for the dishonour of the cheques. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 24863 of 2016 is treated as the lead matter. respondent No. 2 herein - original complainant lodged a complaint in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act) .culminating in the Criminal Case No. 1213 of 2016 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. accused No. 1 is a Company Registered under the Companys Act, 1956, under Registration No. U52100TN2010PTC074515, having Registered Office at 2/1, Street,. Accused No. 2 to 6 are directors of No. 1 company who are looking after the day to day routine and financial business activity of the company. Accused No. 7 is also company incorporated under Company Act having its Registered office address mention hereinabove. Accused No. 8 to 10 are directors of No. 7 company who are looking after the day to day routine and financial business activity looking after the day to day routine and financial business activity of the company, all accused are jointly and severally responsible and liable for the Act of the company. That both the companies are related with each other, as such both companies are responsible and liable for the transactions entered with complainant, therefore their directors are also equally responsible as such they are arraigned as accused in this complaint. accused No. 7, Pavers England wanted to open its exclusive show room, as such inquired and approached complainant for leasing his property -Held Lastly, it is contended on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that it was not a case of insufficiency of fund, as such, ingredients of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act are not made out. We are not inclined to accept the contention of learned counsel for respondent No. 1. In this connection, it is sufficient to mention that in the case 9 Scale 437 : AIR 2015 SC 910, this Court has already held that instruction of "stop payment" issued to the banker could be sufficient to make the accused liable for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. AIR 1998 SC 1057, this Court has clarified that if a cheque is dishonoured because of stop payment instruction even then offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act gets attracted."In the overall view of the matter, I have reached to the conclusion that no case is made out for the quashing of the two complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.Both the applications fail and are hereby rejected. Rule in both the applications stands discharged. The ad-interim order earlier granted stands vacated. Application is Dismissed.
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
1. Since the issues raised in both the captioned applications are the same, the parties are same and the questions of law raised also being the same, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. By these two applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants - original accused Nos. 1, 4 and 5 seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying for quashing of the proceedings of the Criminal Cases Nos. 1213 of 2016 and 341 of 2016 respectively filed in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act) at Ahmedabad arising from the two complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for the dishonour of the cheques.
3. The Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 24863 of 2016 is treated as the lead matter.
4. The respondent No. 2 herein - original complainant lodged a complaint in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act) at Ahmedabad culminating in the Criminal Case No. 1213 of 2016 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint reads as under:
"2. That accused No. 1 is a Company Registered under the Company's Act, 1956, under Registration No. U52100TN2010PTC074515, having Registered Office at 2/1, Subrayyan Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai. Accused No. 2 to 6 are directors of No. 1 company who are looking after the day to day routine and financial business activity of the company. Accused No. 7 is also company incorporated under Company Act having its Registered office address mention hereinabove. Accused No. 8 to 10 are directors of No. 7 company who are looking after the day to day routine and financial business activity looking after the day to day routine and financial business activity of the company, all accused are jointly and severally responsible and liable for the Act of the company. That both the companies are related with each other, as such both companies are responsible and liable for the transactions entered with complainant, therefore their directors are also equally responsible as such they are arraigned as accused in this complaint.
3. That accused No. 7, Pavers England wanted to open its exclusive show room in Ahmedabad, as such inquired and approached complainant for leasing his property, CEO and Managing Director Mr. Utsav Seth accused No. 9, of Pavers England has negotiated and finalized the terms and conditions of the lease agreement with complainant, after finalization of the terms and conditions and lease amount accused No. 1 entered to execute the agreement being franchise of pavers England accordingly lease agreement dated 09/08/2012 was executed, which is registered with the Sub-Registrar of Ahmedabad - 3(Memnagar) under Serial Number : 4603 dated 09/08/2012, with consent and permissible of Pavers England Ltd. who is also jointly and severely responsible and liable. As such agreement executed is also binding on accused No. 7 i.e. Pavers England Ltd.
4. It is the say of complainant that as per the lease agreement executed between accused and complainant initial period of 9 (Nine) Years starting from 15/08/2012 was fixed with lock in period of Five (5) years at the monthly licence fee of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs Only) excluding all taxes, maintenance charges and all other levies and electricity charges. That complainant has handed over the possession of the above office to Pavers England Ltd. for commercial purpose only.
5. That for the purpose of licence fee months starts from 1st date of each English Calendar month and ends on the last day of the same month.
6. That as per the clause 5 of the agreement lock in period is five years, during this period neither party has right to terminate the agreement and in any case same is determined for any reason or terminated by any party then also accused are liable and responsible to pay the licence fee for the full lock in per
S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar
M.M.T.C. Limited v. Medchl Chemicals and Pharma Private Limited
Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry
Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao v. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited
Indus Airways Private Limited v. Magnum Aviation Private Limited
Balaji Seafoods Exports (India) Ltd. v. Mac Industries Ltd.
Mojj Engg. Systems Ltd. v. A.B. Sugars Ltd.
HMT Watches Ltd. v. M.A. Abida
Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Rajvir Industries Ltd.
Rallis India Ltd. v. Poduru Vidya Bhushan
Goaplast (P) Ltd. v. Chico Ursula D’Souza
S. Krishnamoorthy v. Chellammal
Padal Venkata Rama Reddy alias Ramu v. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy and others
Gunmala Sales Private Ltd. v. Navkar Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.