LAWS(SC)-2007-3-10

N K WAHI Vs. SHEKHAR SINGH

Decided On March 09, 2007
N.K.WAHI Appellant
V/S
SHEKHAR SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, allowing the three applications filed by the respondents for quashing the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, on 25th November, 2000.

(2.) Background facts in nutshell are as under : Appellant presented a criminal complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short the Act) in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. It was pleaded that M/s. Westerm India Industries Ltd. is a limited company and the respondents and some others were the Directors/persons responsible for carrying on the business of the company and the liability of these persons is joint and several. It was stated that certain cheques had been issued by the company which were dishonoured on being presented. After giving the necessary notice the complaint was filed. The respondents filed an application for dropping the proceedings stating that they were not Directors of the company and further there was no allegation against them in terms of Section 141 of the Act and as such they should not have been made parties. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the application holding that whether the applicants in the aforesaid petitions were Directors at the relevant point of time or not is to be decided on evidence.

(3.) It was further held that the company is a juristic person and works through persons responsible for carrying out its activities and, therefore, they have been rightly impleaded as parties. Respondents filed applications invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code). The High Court held that the preliminary evidence does not establish that the respondents were either incharge or were responsible to the companies for the conduct of business. In the absence of any such evidence or assertion, it was held that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was not justified in issuing summons to the respondents.