Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—The petitioner, Mahaveer Prasad Mansinghka, is aggrieved by the order dated 07.10.1998 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (CR), Kota, whereby he had taken cognizance for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('the Act' for short) against the petitioner and other co-accused persons. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 29.11.2010 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Cases) Kota, whereby the learned Judge has rejected an application filed by the petitioner for quashing the criminal proceeding, qua him, which is pending before the learned trial Court in the form of criminal case No.1213 of 2005 (Sunil Jain vs. Smt. Mamta Virendra Kumar Mansinghka). Before this Court, the petitioner has prayed that the said criminal case, qua him should be quashed and set aside.

2. Brief facts of the case are that one Sunil Jain had filed a complaint against the petitioner and other co-accused persons for offence under Section 138 of the Act. In the complaint, he had alleged that M/s.Kilol Finance & Investment Private Limited (for short `M/s. KFIP Ltd.'), arrayed as accused No.2, and M/s. Mansinghka Oil Products Limited (for short 'M/s. MOP Ltd.'), arrayed as accused No.6, are sister concerns. They are registered under the provisions of the Companies Act. It was further alleged that Smt. Mamta Mansinghka, arrayed as accused No.1, had issued a cheque, namely, cheque No.372137 dated 04.07.1998 for an amount of Rs.75,00,000/- in favour of the complainant. The said cheque was given on behalf of M/s. KFIP Ltd. However, when the said cheque was submitted for encashment, the same was dishonored interalia on the ground that there was direction “to stop the payment”, as indicated in the body of the cheque, and that there was “insufficient fund”, as indicated in the memo issued by the Bank. Despite the service of notice, as required under Sec. 138 of the Act, due amount was not paid to the complainant. Therefore, the complaint under Sec. 138 of the Act.

3. By order dated 7.10.1998, the learned trial Court had taken cognizance for offence under Section 138 of the Act against all the six accused-persons.

4. Subsequently, on 14.06.2002, the petitioner filed an application, wherein he pleaded that he has no relationship with the management of M/s. KFIP Ltd. Till 20th of January, 1997, he was one of the Directors of M/s. MOP Ltd., but on 20.01.1997 he resigned from the Board of Directors. Therefore, he has no concern with the cheque dated 04.07.1998 issued by M/s. KFIP Ltd. Hence, he prayed that the case against him should be dropped. Since no action was taken on his application dated 14.06.2002, again he filed another application on 18.09.2010, wherein he reiterated the same stand taken by him in his earlier application. By order dated 29.11.2010, learned Magistrate dismissed the application dated 14.06.2002. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present petition before this Court.

5. During the course of hearing, on 03.03.2011, this Court pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner that the cognizance order was not under challenge: the petitioner had merely challenged the order dismissing the petitioner’s application. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to amend the present petition for challenging the order dated 07.10.1998. Subsequently, an amendment petition has been filed, whereby the petitioner is challenging the cognizance order dated 07.10.1998.

6. By order dated 8.3.2011 the amendments made in the petition were allowed. By order dt. 17.3.2011, this Court had stayed the further proceedings qua the petitioner in criminal case No.1646/2010 (Sunil Jain vs. Mamta & Ors.) pending before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Cases), Kota.

7. Mr. A.K. Sharma, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this Court: firstly, Section 141 (1) of the Act deals with vicarious liability of a company. Accord

Click Here to Read the rest of this document