Advocates:
['RAGHVENDRA PRADHAN', '', 'SHIKHAR SHARMA', 'A G', '', 'AWADH TRIPATHI', 'INDIRA TRIPATHI', 'WASIM MIYAN', 'Vivek kumar tripathi']

1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

CRMP No. 681 of 2015

Ratan Singh Bhamara S/o Prem Singh Bhamara Aged About 38 Years

R/o Kabir Chowk, Ram Nagar, Tah. And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Kingsway Elevator Private Limited And Ors. Near Agrasen Hospital,

Samta Colony, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Ajit Kumar Jha, Director Kingsway Elevator Private Limited, Near

Agrasen Hospital, Samta Colony, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

Other Address : Ajit Kumar Jha, Aged 46 Years, S/o Udit Narayan Jha,

Director Kingsway Elevator Private Limited, R/o Park Street No. 1,

Near Dashhara Ground, Choubey Colony, Raipur, District Raipur

Chhattisgarh.

3. Priyanka Jha, Director Kingsway Elevator Private Limited, Near

Agrasen Hospital, Samta Colony, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

Other Address : Ajit Kumar Jha, Aged 46 Years, S/o Udit Narayan Jha,

Director Kingsway Elevator Private Limited, R/o Park Street No. 1,

Near Dashhara Ground, Choubey Colony, Raipur, District Raipur

Chhattisgarh.

4. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Raipur

Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents

For the Petitioner

: Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate.

For the Respondent/State : Shri Vivek Singhal, PL for the State.

For respondents No.1 to 3. : Shri Vivek Kumar Tripathi, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant

Order on Board

21.09.2017

Heard.

Admit

1. This petition under Section of 482 of Cr.P.C has been brought with

prayer to quash the impugned order passed by the First Additional

Sessions Judge, Raipur affirming the order passed by the trial Court

2

discharging respondent No.3 from the complaint case.

2. Petitioner has filed a complaint case against respondents No. 1,2 and

3 in which the respondent No.1 is a company namely Kingsway

Elevator Private Limited Company, and respondents No.2 and 3 are

Directors of the said company. The trial Court after taking cognizance

of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

issued notices, on which respondents appeared before the Court

below. At the stage of reading out substance of accusation, the trial

Court relying on the Judgment of Supreme Court in case of Aparna A.

Shah v. Sheth Developers (P) Ltd., (2013) 8 SCC 71 passed the order

dated 16.04.2014 discharged respondent No.3. This order was

challenged before the Sessions Court in Criminal Case No.144/2014

and the First Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 31.01.2015

dismissed the revision, hence this petition.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court

and the Revisional Court below have erroneously passed the orders

Judgment of Supreme Court in case of Aparna A. Shah v. Sheth

Developers (P) Ltd., (2013) 8 SCC 71 has not laid down any

guidelines to be followed in this case. It is submitted that a judgment is

precedent of its own facts hence, factual situation of this backgrounds

of this case had been different to other principles laid down in Aparna

A. Shah (supra) case. It is prayed that the petition be allowed and the

order passed by the Court below be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that the ratio laid

down in Aparna A. Shah (supra) is applicable in this case as

respondent No.3 was not in-charge of the business and nor was

responsible for the business conducted by the company. Reliance has

3

been also placed on the Judgment of Supreme Court in N.K. Wahi vs

Shekhar Singh And Ors 2007 2 SCC 658 SC in which Hon'ble

Supreme Court relying on the judgment of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

v. Neeta Bhalla and Anr., [2005] 8 SCC 89, held that it is necessary for

the complainant to make averment in complaint that when the offence

was committed the person being a Director of the company was in-

charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the

company. Hence, prayed tha