HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision: 01.07.2025 ****

Vikas ... Petitioner VS.

State of Haryana & Anr. ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL ****

Present: Mr. Rahul Singla, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. BS Virk, Sr.DAG Haryana Mr. SK Aggarwal, Advocate and Mr. Nissim Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.2 ****

Sandeep Moudgil, J. (Oral)

(1). This petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the complaint dated 26.02.2018 titled as “M/s Yamuna Power and Infrastructure Ltd. vs. M/s Corodex Infrastructure P.Ltd.” filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, the 1881 Act) before the JMIC, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari (Annexure P1) as well as the summoning order dated 21.03.2018 (Annexure P2) vide which the petitioner has been summoned to face trial in the above mentioned complaint. (2). Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had resigned from the post of Director w.e.f. 01.06.2015 (Annexure P3) whereas the cheque in question, which is alleged to have been dishonoured by the Bank on 19.12.21017 was issued much later i.e. 15.12.2017 and as such, the petitioner was no longer concerned with the day-to-day affairs of the company or responsible for any act or liability of the company. He further submitted that the petitioner, during his tenure as Director of the Company before the year 2015, was never holding or involved in regular activities of the company.

(3). It is further contended by the petitioner that the cheque in question does not bear the signatures or in any manner, no authority vested with the petitioner apart from any action for issuance of such cheque in any capacity whatsoever on behalf of the company i.e. M/s Corodex Infrastructure P.Ltd.

(4). Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contends that the petitioner was ordered to be summoned by the trial court vide impugned order dated 21.03.2018 and the petitioner intentionally filed this petition at this fag end of the trial only to prolong the trial as the complaint was filed in December, 2018 and the petitioner approached the trial court after a lapse of four years. He further averred that the assertion made by the petitioner that he was not the director of the company at the relevant time, has to be corroborated by leading a piece of evidence to be proved before the trial court and not before this Court.

(5). Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(6). A person would be vicariously liable for commission of an offence on the part of a Company only in the event the conditions precedent laid down therefor in Section 141 of the Act stand satisfied. For the aforementioned purpose, a strict construction would be necessary.

(7). The petitioner did not issue any cheque. He, as noticed hereinbefore, had resigned from the Directorship of the Company. It may be true that as to exactly on what date the said resignation was accepted by the Company is not known, but, even otherwise, there is no averment in the complaint as to how and in what manner the petitioner was responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company or otherwise responsible to it in regard to its functioning. How he is responsible for dishonour of the cheque has not been stated. The allegations made in the complaint, thus, in my opinion does not satisfy the requirements of Section 141 of the Act.

(8). Evidently, after 2015 the petitioner was not involved in any activity of the company, therefore, in that way the petitioner is not liable for any liability of the company which arose after resignation from company i.e. in 2017. It is an admitted fact that the dispute arose between the parties in complaint against the purchase order given by the M/s Corodex infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. to the respondent no. 2 and it is evident from the content of the complaint that the purchase order was given on 05.05.2017. The present petitioner was not holding any position in the company neither at the