V K VORA Vs. K K AHUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through these petitions under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks quashing of proceedings arising out of complaint cases No. 58 & 59 of 2001 filed by the complainant/respondent No. 1 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to the Act) pending in the court of Shri Rajinder Kumar, M.M. Delhi.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts leading to these petitions are that on 14th May, 2001 respondent No. 1. K.K. Ahuja filed two complaints against the company M/s. Motorol Speciality Oils Limited and its office bearers. Complaint No. 58/2001 was regarding dishonouring of five cheques of Rs. 5 lacs each all dated 28th February 2001 whereas the other complaint No. 59/2001 was regarding dishonouring of three cheques for an amount of Rs. 3 lacs dated 31st October, 2000 Rs. 3 lacs dated 30th November and Rs. 10 lacs dated 20th December, 2000 respectively. As per allegations made in the aforesaid complaints, complainant K.K. Ahuja is carrying the business of supplying oils and lubricants and is the sole proprietor of M/s. Delhi Paints & Oil Traders. Against the said goods supplied by the complainant to the company M/s. Motorol Speciality Oils Limited, company had issued cheques. On presentation, these cheques were dishonoured. Petitioner was working as Deputy General Manager in the said company. In both the complaints, said company was cited as accused No. 1 whereas petitioner was cited as accused No. 9. Regarding the role played by the petitioner in the company's dealings with the complainant, the only averment contained in the para No. 2 of the complaints was as follows:- Para No. 2 :

(3.) In preliminary evidence, complainant K.K. Ahuja examined himself as CW- 1. He made an identical statement in both the complaint cases to the effect that accused Nos. 2 to 6 are the Directors of the company and accused Nos. 7 to 9 are the Vice President (Finance), General Manager and Deputy General Manager respectively and they were responsible for the conduct of day to day business of the company at the time of commission of offence. On this basis, learned MM passed identical orders dated 3rd October, 2001 summoning the accused persons including the petitioner to face the trial under Section 138 of the Act.