A director's liability for dishonored cheques under the Negotiable Instruments Act is contingent upon their active management role at the time of issuance.

JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J.

1. This common order shall dispose of all the abovementioned petitions as they arise from similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CRM-M-27027-2016.

2. The present petition has been preferred under Section 482 , Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter 'Cr.P.C.') seeking quashing of complaint No.9117 dated 11.12.2014 under Sections 138 , 141 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881 (hereinafter 'NI Act') as well as summoning order dated 21.03.2015 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh.

3. Briefly, the facts, as alleged, are that petitioner, namely Kuljinder Singh and Ajit Singh are promoters and in charge of M/s Aakar India Developer Pvt. Ltd. The said company was in the business of iron and steel goods with the respondent. In order to settle the outstanding amount of Rs.17,04,157/-, a post dated cheque bearing no.161702 dated 15.04.2014 for Rs.14,00,000/- was issued in favour of the respondent. The said cheque was signed by the petitioner-Kuljinder Singh, being its Director/authorised signatory. On presentation for encashment, the same was dishonoured and returned vide memo dated 03.05.2014, with the remarks- 'account closed.' Thereafter, a legal notice dated 31.05.2014 was served on the accused. Since the accused failed to pay the amount within the stipulated time, the complaint (supra) was instituted.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s)-accused inter alia contends that the petitioner-Kuljinder Singh was a Director and by virtue of it, an Authorised Signatory till he resigned on 25.06.2012. At the time of presentation of the cheque for encashment, the petitioner-Kuljinder Singh had resigned and respondent-Yadvinder Singh was the director. Respondent No.2 was well aware of the fact that Yadvinder Singh had taken over as Director, and as such, he cannot feign ignorance qua the same. Further still, the complaint was initially filed before learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi on 14.07.2014. However, the same was returned to respondent No.2-complainant as the said Court lacked territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, respondent No.2 ought to have sought condonation of delay before proceedings were initiated in complaint (supra) before learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh. Moreover, the summoning order dated 21.03.2015 has been passed in a mechanical manner and the petitioner has only been summoned for the reason of being the signatory of the disputed cheque. Further still, the petitioner had left the country on 31.05.2015 while the proclamation was issued against him on 03.11.2015. Subsequently, he was declared a proclaimed person vide order dated 10.02.2016. As such, since the petitioner was never served, the entire process stands vitiated.

5. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner was the Director/Authorised Person at the time of issuance of the disputed cheque, which duly bears his signature. In fact, the learned trial Court has erred in only summoning the petitioner in the complaint(supra) as Yadvinder Singh and Ajit Singh were also actively involved in day to day activities of the accused company. As such, by virtue of Section 141 , NI Act, every person responsible for managing the affairs of the company on a daily basis will be vicariously liable. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SMS Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Neeta Bhalla and another (2