VIPUL KUMAR MITTAL Vs. VARISHTHA LEASINGI LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal complaint bearing No.726/1 of 2003 qua the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner Vlpul Kumar Mittal is accused No.4 in the complaint filed by the respondent M/s Varishtha Leasing (International) Ltd. In the complaint u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the' Act'), the petitioner is shown as the Director of the accused No.l, M/s Ahaar Finvest Pvt. Ltd. It is alleged in the complaint that all the accused including the petitioner approached the complainant company for a loan of Rs. 5 lakhs for a period of 3 months, that in pursuance of the request made by them the loan was extended from time to time, that cheques towards interest issued in the meantime were dishonoured several times and in lieu of dishonoured cheques fresh cheques were issued and that eventually the loan along with interest was repaid by cheques bearing No. 181914, 181915 and 181916 for Rs.75,050/- Rs.25,016/- and Rs.5,00,000/- dated 20.12.2002 and 20.03.2003 and 20.03.2003 respectively which were again dishonoured. The complainant thereafter proceeded to serve the accused with notice required by the provisions of Section 138 of the Act and filed the complaint on the default of the accused persons in complying with the notice. By the impugned order the petitioner along with other were summoned for the offence u/s 138 of the Act. The grounds on which the order is challenged is that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner as the complainant has not established in what manner the petitioner was in charge of and responsible for the affairs of the company and that the petitioner was not a Director of the company at the relevant time.

(3.) On the basis of the complaint, the Metropolitan Magistrate has summoned all the accused including the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner does not fall in any of the categories of persons who can be summoned for an offence under Section 138 of the Act committed by a company. It is submitted that the prosecution is false and frivolous. I have carefully considered the plea of the petitioner and I find no substance in the same.