A C GAGGAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this writ petition filed by the petitioner under section 482 Cr. P. C. , the petitioner seeks quashing of complaint filed by respondent no. 2 under Sectionl38/141 Negotiable Instruments Act, qua the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is an Engineering Graduate and was an employee of the accused company and his main task was only to take care of the technical aspect of the company. Counsel further states that the petitioner had never dealt with any financial transaction nor he ever conducted any business with the complainant on behalf of the accused company. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case only on account of the fact that he happened to be Director of the company at the relevant time. No specific complaint has been made against the petitioner and he has been summoned only on the basis of the vague allegations made in the complaint. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this court vide order dated 20th March, 2007 in criminal M. C. No. 3305/2005 has already given the directions for quashing the said complaint qua the other Directors, who had filed a similar petition under Section 482 cr. P. C. seeking quashing of the said complaint case filed against them. Counsel for the petitioner also contends that the petitioner also stands on the same roofing and qua the petitioner the allegation made in the complaint are totally vague and no specific fraud has been assigned to him in committing the alleged offence.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

(3.) PERUSAL or the complaint filed by the complainant shows that vague allegations have been leveled against all the Directors without assigning any specific role stating that the Directors of the accused company were responsible or in-charge of the functioning of the company on the relevant date when the said transaction in question resulting into the issuance of the cheque had taken place. Relying upon the judgment reported in S. M. S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla andanr. 1 Justice S. Ravindra bhat quashed the complaint filed against some of the other Directors on the same premise that in the complaint no specific allegations have been made to show as to how and in what manner the accused alleged Directors were responsible for the conduct of business of the accused company or otherwise responsible in any manner with regard to the alleged transaction in question. The case of the petitioner is also similar to that of other Directors who sought quashing of the said proceeding against them. Respondent No. 2 has not chosen to appear despite service and has also not challenged the said order passed by this Court in Criminal M. C. No. 3305/2005 dated 20th march, 2007.