ARUN GARG Vs. DELHI PAINTS AND OIL TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By virtue of the present petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the summoning order dated 22.08.2005 whereby petitioner has been summoned for an offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "N.I Act") in Complaint Case No.546/1/13 titled as Delhi Paints and Oil Traders v. M/s Mega Lube India Ltd & Ors.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner had joined the company as a Director in the year 2001 and resigned from the said post on 27.07.2002. Form 32 was signed and submitted with the Registrar of Companies to this effect on 31.07.2002. Since the date of resignation, the petitioner was not involved in any affairs of the company. The cheques which were dishonoured were dated 18.05.2003, 16.05.2003 and 27.05.2003 which were much later than the time when the petitioner was a Director, therefore, no liability can be accorded against him by the respondent and he has been falsely and maliciously implicated in the matter. Even otherwise, he was not managing the affairs of the company at any point of time. Therefore, no liability can be fastened on him. No notice of dishonour of the cheque was ever sent to the petitioner or was received by him. The petitioner came to know about the complaint case only when non-bailable warrants were issued against him. Immediately he moved the Court for cancellation of the warrant on 21.12.2012. On inspection of Court file, the counsel came to know that some of the other accused persons have also been discharged by this Court, as such it was submitted that the summoning order is bad in law and proceedings qua the petitioner be quashed.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Kshitij Shakdhar, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Rakesh Malhotra, Advocate for the respondent and have perused the record.