H.B. CHATURVEDI Vs. STATE AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition invokes the jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') for quashing the order dated 22.8.2003 whereby the petitioner was summoned to stand trial as an accused in the Complaint Case No. 1372/1 titled Industrial Investment Bank of India Ltd. v. Shamken Cotsyn Ltd. and Ors.

(2.) THE copy of the complaint has been placed on the record. The principle accused in this case is M/s. Shamken Cotsyn Ltd. The petitioner, H.B. Chaturvedi, is accused No. 2 and is described as the Chairman of M/s. Shamken Cotsyn Ltd. The other accused are the Joint Managing Director and Directors of the accused No. 1. The complainant, Industrial Investment Bank of India Ltd., sanctioned a term loan of Rs.500 lakhs under a loan agreement dated 31.5.2000. By way of part payment of dues, accused No. 1 issued cheques bearing Nos. 318204 and 318206 dated 8.7.2003 and 30.6.2003 amounting to Rs.3 lakhs each drawn on City Bank, New Delhi in favor of the complainant. On presentation, the two cheques were dishonoured with the remarks ''Account Closed''. The complainant thereafter fulfilled the formalities of issuing a statutory notice as provided under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (in short the 'Act') and filed the complaint on failure of accused No. 1 in paying the amounts under the two cheques. Coming to the criminal liability of the petitioner for the offence of the accused No. 1 the complainant has the following to say in the complaint, ''The Accused No. 2 is the Chairman of the Company and Accused No. 4 -7 are the Directors of the Company who are involved in day to day functioning of the Company.'' On these allegations and on an affidavit filed by the complainant the Metropolitan Magistrate summoned the petitioner along with other accused vide the impugned order.

(3.) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that no case for summoning the petitioner has been made out under Section 141 of the Act as the section permits only those in charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company to be prosecuted for the offence of a company and not a person by virtue of holding the office of the Chairman. The petition is opposed by respondent No. 2 who is the complainant.