Back
2012(2) JLJ 189
Sujoy Paul, J.
Monotech Systems Ltd. v. Jai Badri Vishal Graphics
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.7113 of 2011 (Gwalior);
Decided on 2.2.2012.
Whether all the persons/officers of the company can be impleaded in the summary criminal proceeding under section 138 read with section 141 of the N.I. Act?
Held : Every person who was incharge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, is responsible for the offence. The first proviso makes it clear that a heavy burden is on the shoulder of such person to show that the offence has been committed without his knowledge. The language of statute shifts the burden on the person who is liable for punishment if he does not prove that the offence is committed without his knowledge.
In the opinion of this Court, if those pleadings are examined in the light of the test laid down in K.K. Ahuja‘s case (supra), it is clear that there are sufficient pleadings in the complaint to implead all the officers of the petitioner company. In this view of the matter, point No.(i) is decided against the petitioner. (2009)10 SCC 48 followed. (2005)6 Supreme 442, (2010)3 SCC 330, 2011 SCC (Cri.) 167 and (2011)2 SCC 811 referred to.
(2) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -- S.138 -- complaint under -- three civil suits already pending about same dispute -- necessary ingredients involved in the complaint -- N.I. Act is attracted -- proceedings under the N.I. Act cannot be stopped.
When three civil suits arising out of same dispute are pending, whether the proceedings under N.I. Act in question can continue and tenable?
Held : A bare reading of complaint shows that prima facie material/averments are available which disclose an offence under section 138 of N.I. Act. Thus, it is not a case whereby upon reading all the averments of complaint it can be said that it is only a civil dispute and no ingredients of N.I. Act are applicable.
Thus, I am unable to hold that merely because certain civil suits are pending between the parties, it will bestow any right to the petitioners to stop the proceedings under N.I. Act when necessary ingredients of N.I. Act are fulfilled by the respondent. 1988(I) MPWN 225 and (2009)1 SCC 69 referred to.
(3) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.482 -- scope of -- complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -- validity of proceedings -- disputed questions of facts -- evidence required for -- no interference called for under section 482 of CrPC. (2011)7 SCC 59, 2011(III) MPWN 111, (2007)12 SCC 93, (2007)12 SCC 369, (2008)10 SCC 109, (2009)1 SCC 516 and (2010)8 SCC 442 referred to. [Paras 25 to 33
¼1½ ijdzkE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e] 1881 & /kkjk 138 rFkk 141] izFke ijarqd & daiuh ds fo:) ifjokn & daiuh ds leLr inkf/kdkfj;ksa dks i{kdkj cuk;k x;k & vfHkopu & ls vfHkizsr & izR;sd O;fDr tks mldk izHkkjh rFkk daiuh ds izfr mRrjnk;h gS & mudks ifjokn esa i{kdkj cuk;k tkuk i;kZIr vfHkopu gS A D;k ijdzkE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 138 lgifBr /kkjk 141 ds v/khu laf{kIr nkafMd dk;Zokgh esa daiuh ds leLr O;fDr;ksa@inkf/kdkfj;ksa dks i{kdkj cuk;k tk ldrk gS \ vfHkfu/kkZfjr % izR;sd O;fDr tks mldk izHkkjh Fkk rFkk daiuh ds dkjckj ds lapkyu ds fy, daiuh ds izfr mRrjnk;h Fkk] ds vfrfjDr daiuh vijk/k ds fy, mRrjnk;h gS A izFke ijarqd ;g Li"V djrk gS fd ,sls O;fDr ds da/kksa ij ;g n‘kkZus dk Hkkjh izek.k Hkkj gS fd vijk/k mldh tkudkjh ds fcuk dkfjr fd;k x;k gS A dkuwu dh Hkk"kk izek.k Hkkj ,sls O;fDr ij Mkyrh gS tks naM ds fy, nk;h gS ;fn og ;g lkfcr ugha djrk fd vijk/k mldh tkudkjh ds fcuk fd;k x;k gS A bl U;k;ky; dh jk; esa] ;fn mu vfHkopuksa dk ds-ds- vkgwtk ds izdj.k ¼iwoksZDr½] esa vf/kdfFkr ij[k ds izdk‘k esa ijh{k.k fd;k tkrk gS] ;g Li"V gS fd ;kph daiuh ds leLr inkf/kdkfj;ksa dks ifjokn esa i{kdkj cuk;k tkuk i;kZIr vfHkopu gS A ekeys ds bl n`f"Vdks.k ls] iz‘u dz-¼1½ ;kph ds fo:) fofu‘pr fd;k tkrk gS A ¼2009½10 ,l lh lh 48 vuqlfjr A ¼2005½6 lqizhe 442] ¼2010½3 ,l lh lh 330] 2011 ,l lh lh ¼fdz-½ 167 rFkk ¼2011½2 ,l lh lh 811 fufnZ"V A ¼2½ ijdzkE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e] 1881 & /kkjk 138 & mica/k ds v/khu ifjokn & mlh fookn ds fo"k; esa rhu flfoy okn iwoZ ls gh yafcr & ifjokn esa vko‘;d la?kVd varfoZfyr & ijdzkE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e vkdf"kZr gS & ijdzkE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e ds varxZr dk;Zokgh ugha jksdh tk ldrh A tc mlh fookn ls mRiUu rhu flfoy okn yafcr gSa] D;k ijdzkE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e ds v/khu iz‘uxr dk;Zokgh fuajrj rFkk pykus ;ksX; gks ldrh gS \ ¼iSjk 8 vfHkfu/kkZfjr % dsoy ifjokn ds i<+us ij nf‘kZr gS fd izFken`"V~;k lkexzh@izdk‘ku miyC/k gSa tks ijdzkE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 138 ds v/khu ,d vijk/k izdV djrs gSa A bl izdkj] ;g ,slk izdj.k ugha gS ftlls ifjokn ds leLr izDdFku i<+us ij ;g dgk tk lds fd ;g ,d flfoy fookn gS rFkk ijdzkE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e ds la?kVd ykxw ugha gSa A bl izdkj] eSa ;g fu/kkZfjr djus esa vleFkZ g¡w fd dsoy ek= blfy, fd i{kdkjksa ds e/; esa dfri; flfoy okn yafcr gSa] tc ijdzkE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e ds vko‘;d la?kVdksa dh iwfrZ dh xbZ gS rc ;kph dks ijdzkE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e ds v/khu dk;Zokgh jksdus ds fy, ;g dksbZ vf/kdkj iznku djsxk A 1988¼1½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 225 rFkk ¼2009½1 ,l lh lh 69 fufnZ"V A ¼3½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 482 & dh O;kfIr & ijdzkE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e] 1881 dh /kkjk 138 ds v/khu ifjokn & dk;Zokfg;ksa dh fof/kekU;rk & rF; ds fookfnr iz‘u & lk{; visf{kr & naM izfdz;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 482 ds v/khu gLr{ksi ugha A ¼2011½7 ,l lh lh 59] 2011¼3½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 111] ¼2007½12 ,l lh lh 93] ¼2007½12 ,l lh lh 369] ¼2008½10 ,l lh lh 109] ¼2009½1 ,l lh lh 516 rFkk ¼2010½8 ,l lh lh 442 fufnZ"V A ¼iSjk 25 ls 33
1. Brief facts necessaryfor adjudication of this matter are as under :
2. The respondent filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘N.I. Act’) before the competent Court at Gwalior. The present petitioners by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of CrPC have called in question the legality, validity and propriety of this complaint.
3. The case of the petitioners is that Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was entered into which is placed as Annexure P-2. As per this MOU, the petitioners paid certain amount to the respondent. However, yet another MOU was entered into between the parties, which is Annexure P-3. As per the MOU (Annexure P-3), an understanding was made between the parties. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that by communication, Annexure P-5, the petitioners informed the respondent that earlier cheque No.068522 dated 5.5.2010 for an amount of Rs.5.00 lacs be not presented in the bank for realisation and same be returned to the petitioners for cancellation. In lieu thereof the petitioners enclosed a cheque No.069976 dated 12.5.2010 for Rs.5.00 lacs. In nutshell, the petitioner’s case as reflected from MOU is that the total amount required to be paid by the petitioners was Rs.29,21,695/-. Petitioners submit that Rs.15 lacs was paid and remaining Rs.14,21,695/- was required to be paid. This amount was paid by issuance of two cheques No.069976 for Rs.5,00,000/- and No.068523 for Rs.9,21,695/- respectively. Out of these two amounts, a cheque of Rs.5,00,000/- was sought to be withdrawn by paying a different cheque as mentioned above. However, the petitioners submit that the respondent after getting the new cheque of Rs.5,00,000/- produced all the three cheques, i.e., two cheques for Rs.5,00,000/- and one cheque for Rs.9,21,695/-.
4. Learned senior counsel submits that once amount was returned to the respondent, as per the MOU, the machineries were required to be sent back to the petitioners by the respondent. However, the machineries were not sent to the petitioners and, therefore, a civil suit was filed on the original side before the High Court of Madras. This civil suit is placed on record as Civil Suit No.715/2010 (Annexure P-8). In the said civil suit, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs :
“(a) Directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.37,88,983/- together with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of plaint till the realization of the amount.
(b) To declare the cheques bearing Nos.068522 dated 5.5.2010 for Rs.5,00,000/-, 068523 dated 10.5.2010 for Rs.9,21,695/- and 069976 dated 12.5.2010 for Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank, T.Nagar Branch issued by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant as cancelled.
(c) To pay the cost of the suit tothe plaintiff.
(d) To pass such further orders of other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper and thus render justice.”
The two cheques issued by the petitioners for Rs.14,21,695/- to the respondent could not be realised by the respondent for some time because of an interim order passed by Madras High Court in the aforesaid civil suit. However, the said interim order was vacated lateron and, therefore, admittedly, the respondent had realised this amount of Rs.14,21,695/-.
5. The aforesaid civil suit before Madras High Court was filed before 28.8.2010 by the petitioners. The respondent herein filed the impugned complaint on 28.8.2010 at Gwalior. The learned senior counsel submits that apart from this, two more civil proceedings arising out of same matter are pending before the competent civil Courts. One civil suit is filed as Annexure P-12 along with the petition. In this suit filed for declaration and permanent injunction, the respondent has prayed for allowing relief :
^^vr% ekuuh; U;k;ky; ls fouez fuosnu gS fd oknh dk okn fMdzh fd;k tkdj] fuEu vk’k; dk t;&i= iznku fd;k tk, % v- ;g ?kksf”kr fd;k tk, fd oknh fookfnr e’khu ¼;w-oh0- ‘ksVj o izkslslj½ izfrokn
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
