IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 1541 of 2020 ==========================================================

SANJIV KRISHNAJI SHELGIKAR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR. BHADRISH S RAJU(6676) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR RD DAVE(264) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR. CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========= =================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Date : 28/07/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”), the petitioner seeks quashing of the Criminal Case No.3653 of 2008 pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, N.I.A. Court No.28, Ahmedabad and further proceedings arising thereof.

2. Petitioner seeks following relief:-

a) To allow this petition.

b) To quash and set aside the complaint filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioner which is culminated into Criminal Case No. 3653 of 2008 currently pending before the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I.A.) Court No. 28, Ahmedabad.

c) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this application, to stay further proceedings of the impugned Criminal Case No. 3653 of 2008 currently pending before the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I.A.)

Court No. 28, Ahmedabad, qua the Petitioner.”

3. Seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings as against the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Bhadrish Raju, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has essentially raised a two-fold submission. Firstly, it is submitted that the petitioner is not the signatory to the cheque in question. Secondly, it is contended that the petitioner was not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the principal accused company. It is further submitted that one of the directors of the company had resigned, and notably, prior to the date of issuance of the cheque, the petitioner had also tendered his resignation as Director, which is duly reflected in the statutory records maintained by the Registrar of Companies (ROC).

3.1. In such circumstances, since the petitioner neither drew the cheque nor continued as a Director of the company at the relevant point of time, it is contended that no criminal liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“the NI Act”) can be fastened upon him, and accordingly, the petition deserves to be allowed.

Per contra

4. , learned advocate Mr. R.D. Dave, appearing for respondent No.2 – the original complainant – contended that accused No.1-company had issued a post-dated cheque in favour of the complainant, in a series of such post-dated instruments. It is further submitted that at the relevant time, the petitioner was a Director of Credentials Finance Limited and, therefore, his involvement must be presumed.

4.1. Upon such submission, learned advocate for the respondent No.2-original complainant prayed to dismiss the present petition.

5. Adopting the submission of learned advocate for the respondent No.2-original complainant, learned APP submitted not to entertain the present petition.

6. Upon perusal of the complaint, this Court finds that there are no categorical assertions in the complaint that the petitioner was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the accused company at the relevant time. On the contrary, paragraph 3 of the complaint states that various cheques were issued by accused No.1-company, drawn on Federal Bank Limited, and were signed by accused No.2 in the capacity of Director. Accused No.3 is one Mr. Rajeev Kochhar. The cheque in question, which forms the basis of the complaint, does not bear the signature of the petitioner. Further, there is a complete absence of averments in the complaint indicating how the petitioner was involved in the day-to-day business operations of the accused compa