Liability under Section 141 of the NI Act requires being in charge and responsible for the company's affairs. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of this legal provision.

JUDGMENT :

(Rakesh Kainthla, J.)

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking the quashing of Complaint No. 45/2020, pending in the Court of learned Additional CJM, Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P. for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short ‘the Act’). It has been asserted that respondent No. 1-complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner and proforma respondents asserting that they used to supply scrap, and other crushed iron steel waste material to proforma respondents and petitioner. A cheque of Rs.9,90,000/- was issued for discharging the legal liability, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The company was closed. Notice was served upon proforma respondent no. 3 and 4; however, they did not respond to the notice. The petitioner replied to the notice claiming that he had left the job much earlier. Learned Trial Court took cognizance based on the complaint and summoned the petitioner and other persons. There is no material on record to summon the petitioner. The requirements of Section 141 of the NI Act were not satisfied. The complaint was filed against the company and the petitioner is the Executive Director of the Company. The cheque is signed by the petitioner and the date of issuance of the cheque is 10.12.2019. Only a person who is in charge and responsible for the affairs of the company can be held liable under Section 141 of the NI Act. The name of the petitioner was removed from the list of authorized signatories on 29.1.2018. The cheque was signed by the petitioner when he was the authorized signatory but it was presented when the petitioner had ceased to be the employee or the authorized signatory. If there was any liability before 29.1.2018, the cheque should have been issued before that date. The learned Trial Court could not have taken cognizance without the compliance of Section 141 of the NI Act. Therefore, the present petition seeking a quashing of the complaint.

2. I have heard Ms. Heena Chauhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Aman Sharma learned counsel for respondent no.1-complainant.

3. Ms Heena Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the extract of Minutes of the Board meeting (Annexure P-5) and the letter written by the Bank (Annexure P-6), the petitioner had ceased to be an authorized signatory of the company on 29.1.2018. The cheque (Annexure P-2) bears the date 10.1.2020 when the petitioner was not the authorized signatory. Hence, she prayed that the present petition be allowed and the complaint pending before the learned Trial Court be quashed.

4. Mr. Aman Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no.1 has submitted that it is undisputed that the petitioner has signed the cheque. Therefore, he is liable for its dishonour. The petitioner cannot produce any document before this Court in the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

5. I have given considerable thought to the submissions at the bar and have gone through the record carefully.

6. The principles of exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. were laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Supriya Jain v. State of Haryana, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 765 : (2023) 7 SCC 711 wherein it was observed at page 716:-

17. The principles to be borne in mind with regard to the quashing of a charge/proceedings either in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397CrPC or Section 482CrPC or together, as the case may be, has engaged the attention of this Court many a time. Reference to each and every precedent is unnecessary. However, we may profitably refer to only one decision of this Court where upon a survey of almost all the precedents on the point, the principles have been summarised by this Court succinctly. In Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander [Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 687 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986], this Court laid dow