IMPORTANT POINT
A person submitting false documents in court proceedings is deemed to have no right to be heard unless they purge the contempt.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. M. Kabra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. By filing this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, who is the accused no.4 in C.R. Case No. 2104C/2016 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M), Guwahati has prayed for quashing of the said criminal complaint proceeding as well as for quashing of the order dated 09.02.2015, by which cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act for short).

3. In the complaint petition, it is projected that the respondent is the proprietor of a firm under the name and style of D.R.S. Enterprises having its office and business at Guwahati and there was regular business transaction with the accused nos.1 and 2 company, namely, Times Ferro Alloys Ltd., of which the accused no.3 was the Chairman and the accused no.4 i.e. the petitioner is the Director and the accused nos.5 and 6 are related to the day to day business of the company. It was projected that against supply of Low Ash Metrological Coke to the accused company, it had issued a cheque bearing no. 428303 dated 10.02.2013 for a sum of Rs.20.00 lakh drawn on State Bank of India, Spl. Chowringhee SME Branch, Kolkata in the name of the firm of the respondent. The said cheque was deposited for collection with ICICI Bank, Fancy Bazar Branch on 17.02.2013, but the same was dishonoured by the State Bank of India, Centralized Clearing Processing Centre, Panbazar, Guwahati and the complainant was provided with a return memo dated 19.02.2013 with remark “not arranged for”, which was received by the complainant on 20.02.2013.

4. The said cheque was re-deposited on two occasions, but the same was returned with return memo indicating that “payment stopped by the drawer”. It was dishonoured on both occasions on the ground “payment stopped by the drawer”. The memo of dishonoured on the third occasion dated 09.05.2013 was received by the respondent on 10.05.2013. Notice of demand dated 24.05.2013 issued by the respondent through its counsel through registered post with A/C, asking the accused persons to make payment with 15 days of receiving notice. By a reply dated 31.05.2013, the accused persons admitted their liability and assured payment in two equal installment of Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees ten lakh only) each on 20.06.2013 and 20.07.2013 respectively, which was not done and therefore, a complaint case was instituted.

5. By order dated 09.02.2015, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M), Guwahati found sufficient ground to proceed with the case against the accused persons for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and ordered issuance of summons.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure-A to the writ petition and it is submitted that the petitioner, namely, Shwet Agarwal, who was earlier the Director of Times Ferro Alloys Ltd. had resigned from Directorship of the said company from 10.10.2012.

7. By referring to the provisions of Section 141 of the NI Act, it is submitted that a mere statement in the complaint petition that the petitioner is responsible for the business of the company is not sufficient as there is nothing in the complaint petition to show how and in what manner the petitioner is responsible for the affairs of the company, failing which the complaint was liable to be quashed.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner against the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent and has submitted that the petitioner was not the Director and not in charge of the affairs of the company.

9. In this regard, reliance was placed on the following cases, viz. (1) S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla & Anr., (2005) 8 SCC 89, (2) Siby Thomas v. Somany Ceramics Ltd., 2023 INSC 890, (3) Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi & Ors., AIR 1983 SC 67 : (1983) 1 SCC