Directors can be held liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act even if the company is not named as an accused, provided they are responsible for the company's conduct.

JUDGMENT :

In both the writ petitions, the common question of fact and law are involved and in view of that both the writ petitions are being heard together with consent of the parties.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the respondent State and learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2.

3. W.P.(Cr.) No.485 of 2024 has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 18.09.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No.2902 of 2019 whereby the summons have been issued against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi.

4. W.P. (Cr.) No.486 of 2024 has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 13.09.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No.2959 of 2019 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act wherein the petitioner has been summoned and the matter is pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi.

5. The story of both the complaint case is almost similar and since the amount is different that’s why both the complaint case has been filed.

6. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that the opposite party No.2 has alleged inter alia stating in the complaint petition that he owns and possess a piece and parcel of land under Khewat No.10, which appertains to Plot No.573, measuring an area 2.89 acres and plot Nos.574 and 593 measuring an area 6 decimal and 37 decimals respectively situated at Village Purani Ranchi, PS – Kotwali, District – Ranchi. It is further alleged that the petitioner had a dialogue of sale of plot No.573 measuring an area 2.81 acres out of 2.89 acres @ Rs.5 lakhs per decimal with M/s Morias Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and after examining the document, he believed that opposite party No.2 is the owner of the property and accordingly agreement to sale was drafted in English language, whereas the allegation of the opposite party No.2 that he would have been more comfortable in Hindi language. It is further alleged that no earnest money was paid by the said Morias Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. on the day of execution of deed of agreement to sale dated 04.06.2016. It is also alleged that Director of Morias Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. valued the said property to the tune of Rs. Four crores thirty lacs in the agreement which was not the price negotiated. It is also alleged that protest was made by the opposite party No.2 with Morias Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and price on a total lump sum price for Rs.11,64,50,000/- was fixed, which was to be paid by the Morias Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. to opposite party No.2 at the time of execution of deed of sale. The said Morias Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. got the deed of sale executed in favour of Kanodia Builders LLP, for a valuable consideration amount of Rs.11,64,50,000/- towards TDS which was deposited by Kanodia Builders LLP in the account of Central Government vide BRS Code No.6360218, challan No.33142 dated 03.06.2016. On verification, the opposite party No.2 found that no amount has been credited in his account and on being questioned, the respondent No.2 got 5 demand drafts from Morias Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. of Rs. Three Crore Thirty Lacs, which were duly credited on 08.06.2016 and 14.06.2016 and balance amount was to be paid by Morias Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. It is further alleged that in order to pay off the legal debt, a cheque bearing Nos.000279 and 000280 was issued by the Morias Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. but it could not be honored due to insufficient fund and accordingly the opposite party No.2 issued notice to the Morias Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and the petitioner but payment was not made to him, hence he filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in the first case, the a