SHAMBHU KUMAR AGGARWAL Vs. VED PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four petitions under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order since they raise identical issues and the respondent in all the petitions is common. These petitions seek quashing of the summoning order dated 14. 9. 2005 in complaint case No. 3891/2007 and the aforesaid complaint case, and the summoning order dated 16. 5. 2005 in complaint case No. 3890/2007 as well as the said complaint case pending in the Court of metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The aforesaid two complaint cases under Section 138 read with Section 141 and 142 of the negotiable Instruments Act (the Act) have been filed by the same complainant, namely, Shri Ved Prakash, who is the respondent in all these petitions. The petitioner in Crl. M. C. No. 1798/2007 (pertaining to complaint case No. 3891/2007)and Crl. M. C. No. 1799/2007 (pertaining to complaint case No. 3890/2007) is Shri shambhu Kumar Aggarwal, whereas Crl. M. C. No. 2192/2007 and Crl. M. C. No. 2197 (which arises out of complaint case No. 3890/2007 and complaint case No. 3891/2007 respectively) have been preferred by Shri Prakash Chand Saraf and Shri Amit aggarwal.

(2.) THE respondent Shri Ved Prakash who is the sole proprietor of M/s N. K. Industries has preferred the aforesaid two complaints wherein Shri Shambhu kukmar Aggarwal is arrayed as accused No. 5 in both the complaints, and Shri prakash Chand Saraf and Shri Amit Gupta are arrayed as accused Nos. 6 and 4 respectively in the said complaints. Accused No. 1 is the company M/s Chetak spintex Ltd. in both the complaint cases. I first proceed to deal with the petitions filed by Shri Shambhu Kumar Aggarwal,i. e. , Crl. M. C. No. 1798/2007 and crl. M. C. No. 1799/2007.

(3.) THE submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a bare perusal of the complaints does not make out a case against the petitioner Shri Shambhu kumar Aggarwal. He submits that respondent has, by making a sweeping averment, roped in all the directors of the company M/s Chetak Spintex Ltd. , who is accused No. 1 in the aforesaid two complaints. He submits that the omnibus statement made in paragraph 2 of the two complaints to the effect: 'that accused Nos. 2 to 7 have been the directors of accused No. 1. The accused Nos. 2 to 7 have been the in charge of and were responsible to the accused No. 1 company for the conduct of the business of the said company at the time of purchasing of the goods, issuing the cheque of and responsible for conduct of its business even at the time of service of legal notice and continue to be so till date. ', is not sufficient to fix liability upon the petitioner in terms of section 138 read with Section 142 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred various decisions of the Supreme Court which have been rendered from time to time, namely, S. M. S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Neeta Bhalla and Anr. (2005) 8 SCC 89 (hereinafter referred to as S. M. S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (I), Saroj Kumar Poddar vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. (2007) 3 SCC 693, sabitha Ramamurthy and Anr. vs. R. B. S. Channabasavaradhya, 2006 (9) Scale 212, n. Rangachari vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. 2007 V AD (SC) 210, N. K. Wahi vs. Shekhar Singh and Ors. AIR 2007 SC 1454, K. Srikant Singh vs. M/s North East securities Ltd. and Anr. , 2007 (3) JCC [ni] 268, Maksud Saiyed vs. State of gujarat and Ors. JT 2007 (11) SC 276 and S. K. Alag vs. State of U. P. and Ors. 2008 III AD (SC) 661