KANARATH PAYATTIYATH BALRAJ Vs. RAJA ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner by way of Crl.M.C.Nos. 3303/2016, 3310/2016, 3312/2016, 3314/2016, 3317/2016, 3318/2016, 3319/2016, 3320/2016, 3321/2016, 3323/2016, 3324/2016, 3325/2016, 3327/2016, 3328/2016, 3329/2016, 3331/2016 and 3334/2016 challenges the order dtd. 9/5/2016 summoning him for offence punishable under Ss. 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the NI Act) in Criminal Complaint cases Nos. 6/1/16, 18/1/16, 20/1/16, 19/1/16, 21/1/16, 12/1/16, 11/1/16, 14/1/16, 8/1/16, 13/1/16, 10/1/16, 15/1/16, 9/1/16, 17/1/116, 16/1/16, 7/1/16, 22/1/16 and seeks quashing of complaints as well. By way of Crl.M.C.Nos. 3311/2016, 3313/2016, 3315/2016, 3316/2016, 3322/2016, 3326/2016, 3330/2016, 3332/2016, 3333/2016, 3335/2016 the petitioner challenges the order dtd. 30/3/2016 summoning him for offence punishable under Ss. 138 read with 142 of the NI Act in Criminal Complaint cases Nos. 33/1/16, 28/1/16, 29/1/16, 31/1/16, 32/1/16, 36/1/16, 35/1/16, 23/1/16, 24/1/16, 27/1/16 and seeks quashing of complaints as well.

(2.) Complaints as noted above were filed by two respondents (separately) Raja Arora and Ashok Arora against M/s. Vasan Health Care Private Limited (in short Vasan Health Care) and its Directors alleging that the complainants were the joint owners of the various built up properties which were leased out to Vasan Health Care. The terms of the lease deed between the complainant and the accused persons inter alia fixed monthly rents and a security deposit. The accused in the complaint i.e. Vasan Health Care and its Directors issued cheques towards part-payment of the monthly rents. However, when the cheques were presented, the same were dishonoured for the reason 'payment stopped by drawer'. On the assurance of the accused persons, the cheques were represented, however they were again returned unpaid with remarks 'payment stopped by drawer'. Legal demand notices were issued to which replies were sent. Since despite expiry of the period of 15 days after the receipt of notice, the amount was not paid, the respondents filed the complaints as noted above.

(3.) The two-fold contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner is the independent non-executive nominee director and thus cannot be fastened with the vicarious liability to pay the dues of the company, and that the petitioner resigned from the company on 10/11/2015 before the cause of action accrued i.e. payment was not made despite service of legal demand notice. Hence the complaints and the impugned order summoning him are liable to be quashed qua the petitioner.