PRATIK JAIN Vs. VED PRAKASH KAUSHIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in these petitions i.e. Crl.M.C. 2564/2013 and Crl.M.C. 3163/2013 is to the order dated 16.01.2013 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in Complaint Case No.259/12/12 u/s 138 read with Section 142 Negotiable Instruments Act whereby the petitioners were ordered to be summoned.

(2.) The petitioners seek quashing of the summoning order dated 16.01.2013 and all the proceedings emanating therefrom, inter alia, on the allegations that M/s NKG Steel (India) Pvt. Ltd was incorporated through its Directors Naresh Gupta and Rita Gupta with an authorised share capital of Rs.10 lakhs only. Naresh Gupta approached the petitioners and asked them to become Additional Directors of his company. The petitioners were appointed as Additional Directors on 25.03.2011. However, there were not attributed any role or duties and thus they were not a part of day-to-day affairs or conduct of NKG Steel (India) Pvt. Ltd. Respondent no.1 gave Naresh Gupta a loan of Rs. 10 lakhs by RTGs transaction for a period of four months. The petitioners were not a part of the monetary deal nor had any knowledge about the same. After four months, a cheque signed and issued by NKG Steel (India) Pvt. Ltd in favour of respondent no.1 for an amount of Rs.10 lakhs was given but the same was dishonoured on two occasions upon presentation with the remarks "Insufficient funds" and "Stop Payment" respectively. Again two fresh cheques were signed by Naresh Gupta for an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs each and were issued in favour of the proprietorship firm of respondent no.1 in lieu of previously dishonoured cheque. Both the cheques were returned unpaid with the remark "Stop Payment". The petitioner received a legal notice sent by respondent no.1 wherein it was falsely alleged that the petitioners along with the other Directors of NKG Steel (India) Pvt. Ltd were responsible for making false promises and giving assurances with respect to the dishonoured cheque amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs which was duly signed and issued by NKG Steel (India) Pvt. Ltd in favour of respondent no.1. To avoid being falsely implicated and also due to some pre-occupation, the petitioners submitted their resignation and duly filled Form 32 and resigned from the post of Additional Directors.

(3.) A complaint was filed by respondent no.1 wherein in a mechanical manner, without application of mind, the impugned order was passed whereby the petitioners were summoned. It is alleged that the petitioners were only Additional Directors of NKG Steel (India) Pvt. Ltd who never attended any board meetings nor were attributed any role or duties. No specific role had been allotted to the petitioners to make them vicariously liable for the transaction that took place between NKG Steel (India) Pvt. Ltd and respondent no.1, as such the summoning order qua the petitioners is bad in the eye of law and same is liable to be quashed.