RAJESH SHARMA Vs. MADHU SEHGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition the Petitioner seeks quashing of criminal proceedings emanating from criminal complaint case No. 1609/1/09 titled as Mrs. Madhu Sehgal Vs. Mr. Rajesh Sharma for offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act (in short N.I. Act). The issue raised by the Petitioner in the present petition is that in the absence of the company having been arrayed as an accused the Petitioner who had signed the cheque as authorized signatory of the company could not have been summoned, since the cheque was not drawn in his individual capacity on an account maintained by him.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the company M/S. Ramji Dass Motors Pvt. Ltd. and the Respondent Smt. Madhu Sehgal entered into an agreement whereby Smt. Madhu Sehgal let out the premises to the company on the basis of an agreement executed between the parties. The Respondent assured that the necessary repairs etc. would be carried out and thus the lease agreement was signed by M/S. Ramji Dass Motors Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Shri Rajesh Sharma, the Petitioner herein. According to the Petitioner, the tenant M/S. Ramji Dass Motors Pvt. Ltd. gave a demand draft of Rs. 7 lakhs. Since the Respondent needed some assurance that the rent would be paid pursuant to an understanding, two cheques bearing No. 926717 and 926716 dated 21st June, 2009 for a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- each were handed over on behalf of M/S. Ramji Dass Motors Pvt. Ltd. signed by its authorized signatory the Petitioner herein to the Respondent. It is stated that in the past also the cheques were got signed by two authorized signatories and thus the signature of one authorized signatory were invalid. The cheques got dishonoured and the Respondent sent the legal notice to the Petitioner. Even the complaint was filed against the Petitioner in the individual capacity though he had signed the cheques in the capacity of Director/ authorized signatory of the company M/S. Ramji Dass Motors Pvt. Ltd. According to the Petitioner no summons could have been issued as the necessary ingredients of Section 138 N.I. Act are not made out. The cheque was neither issued by the Petitioner on his behalf nor was it drawn on the bank account maintained by him. It was issued on behalf of the company and on an account maintained by the company. Vicarious liability of the Petitioner was attracted under Section 141 of the N.I. Act only if the company was made a party. In the absence of the company being made a party, no summons could have been issued to the Petitioner. Reliance is placed on P.J. Agro Tech Limited & Ors. Vs. Water Base Limited, 2010 12 SCC 146.

(3.) Replying to the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that the Petitioner was the tenant and cheque had been issued by him in discharge of his individual liability, it is contended that even in this fact situation the Petitioner could not be prosecuted as the cheques were not drawn on the bank account maintained by the Petitioner but by the company.