KISHORE KANNA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") to quash the criminal complaint titled as Lava International Ltd. V Fanatic System Pvt. Ltd. & others bearing CC no. 16578/2017 filed by the respondent no.2 under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "NI Act") which was stated to be pending in the court of Ms. Ambika Singh, Metropolitan Magistrate-02, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi/successor court (hereinafter referred to as the "trial court").

(2.) The respondent no.2 filed a complaint titled as Lava International Ltd. V Fanatic System Pvt. Ltd. & others bearing CC no. 16578/2017 under Sec. 138 of the NI Act implicating 5 accused therein including the petitioner as accused no.4. The respondent no.2 pleaded that the accused no.1 is a private limited company and is engaged in the business of trading and manufacturing of mobile handsets and the accused nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are the Directors/Additional Directors of the accused no. 1 and are liable for the day to day affairs of the accused no. 1. The accused no.1 is having business relationship with the respondent no.2 being distributor for goods of the respondent no.2/company as per Modern Trade Agreement dtd. 12/11/2015. The respondent no.2 during the course of business had supplied goods as per various tax invoices bearing no. 1014217023, 1014217032, 1014217048, 1014217070 and 1014217094 at times to the accused. As per ledger account maintained by the respondent no.2, Rs.1,03,92,798.00is due and payable by the accused to the respondent no. 2.

(3.) The petitioner being aggrieved filed the present petition. The petitioner pleaded that he joined the accused no. 1on 28/9/2015 and was appointed as regional sales manager. The cheques in question were issued by the directors of the accused no. 1 and at that time, the petitioner was not the Additional Director of the accused no. 1. The petitioner did not sign the cheques in question and was not connected with the transaction between the accused no. 1 company and the respondent no. 2. The petitioner sent the reply dtd. 9/11/2017 to the legal notice dtd. 24/10/2017 wherein he denied allegations of the legal notice.