AMUL URHWARESHE Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY virtue of these four Petitions, the Petitioner seeks quashing of the four Complaints titled 'M/s. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd. (IREDA) v. M/s. Enbee Infrastructure Ltd. Etc.' qua him on the ground that the dishonoured cheques were dated 31.03.2005; and the Petitioner resigned from the Directorship of M/s. Enbee Infrastructure Ltd. on 31.08.2000 and information in this regard was sent to the Registrar of Companies (ROC) on 10.09.2000, thus the Petitioner cannot be said to be guilty of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the N.I.Act).

(2.) THE learned counsel for the Petitioner also relies on the order dated 24.01.2011 passed by A.K.Pathak, J. in Criminal M.C. No.1366/2010 and dated 11.04.2012 passed by Pratibha Rani, J. in Criminal M.C. No.1926.2011 where in similar circumstances the complaint against the Petitioner was quashed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Petitioner has taken me through the certified copy of Form No.32 and also the receipt through which the information regarding resignation was communicated to the ROC. The demand draft for Rs.1,000.00 for lodging an information regarding date of change in appointment was prepared on 03.09.2000 and the information was lodged on 10.09.2000. Therefore, the information regarding Petitioner's resignation would be effective from 10.09.2000. It cannot be said that this information was manipulated or was pre-dated as the same was documented. Atul Kohli relied upon by the learned counsel for Respondent No.2, therefore, does not apply to the facts of the present case.