The implications of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and compliance with Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure require factual determination and cannot be decided under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

JUDGMENT :

These are the four C482 Applications.

2. In C-482 Application No. 1624 of 2022, Shiv Om Sharma Vs. Atul Kumar Singh, the challenge as given is to the proceedings of the Criminal Complaint Case No. 4444 of 2019, Vishwanath Paper and Board Limited Vs. Shiv Om Sharma, which were the proceedings drawn under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which was got registered at Police Station, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, which is presently pending consideration before the Court of Judicial Magistrate/ 2nd Additional Civil Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

3. In C-482 Application No. 1627 of 2022, Shiv Om Sharma Vs. Pankaj Gupta, the challenge as given by the applicants is to the proceedings of the Criminal Complaint Case No. 4405 of 2019 Pankaj Gupta Vs Shiv Om Sharma, which was yet again the proceedings drawn under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which was got registered at Police Station, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, which too is presently pending consideration before the Court of Judicial Magistrate/ 2nd Additional Civil Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

4. In C482 Application No. 1628 of 2022 Shiv Om Sharma Vs. Atul Kumar Singh, the challenge as given by the applicant, was to the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 4446 of 2019, Vishwanath Paper and Board Limited Vs. Shiv Om Sharma, which were yet again the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which was got registered at Police Station, Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar, pending consideration before the Court of Judicial Magistrate /Additional Civil Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

5. Lastly, In C-482 Application No. 1633 of 2022, Shiv Om Sharma Vs. Atul Kumar Singh, the present applicant has given a challenge to the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 4445 of 2019, Vishwanath Paper and Board Limited Vs. Shiv Om Sharma, held under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, registered at Police Station, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, which is presently pending consideration before the Court of Judicial Magistrate/ Additional Civil Judge Kashipur, district Udham Singh Nagar.

6. There are two fold arguments, which are being agitated by the learned counsel for the applicants, while challenging the proceedings of the respective 138 proceedings, ceased before the learned trial Court.

7. The first argument is, which has been even taken as a ground too in the C-482 Applications, is with regard to what bearing would Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act, would have to the proceedings which are held under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, if the same has been resorted to on a transaction for the offences, for which the company which has been referred to under Section 141, could be dealt with, as to whether at all the proceedings, in the absence of the company being made as a party to the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, whether the same would, still at all, be tenable or not?

8. The second argument, which has been extended by the learned counsel for the applicant, though without there being any specific ground pleaded in the present C-482 Applications is with regard to the compliance of the provisions contained under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a complaint case on which, the cognizance have been taken.

9. This Court feels it be apt to answer the first question, first. The exception, as carved out in relation to the offences pertaining to the companies, if that is taken into consideration which had necessitated that the person committing an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, if it is a company, all its agents of the company, who were involved or engaged at the time of commission of the offence and were responsible to the company for the conduct of business of the company, which has been complained of, shall be deemed to be guilty of offence and shall be liable to be p