JITENDRA NATH SARIN Vs. DCM FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks quashing of the complaint Nos. 2630/1/04, 2653/1/04, 2662/1/04, 2867/1/04 and 1031/1/04 filed against him and other persons under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. These five complaints relate to cheques dated 28. 10. 1998, 28. 7. 1998, 28. 4. 1997, 28. 1. 1999 and 28. 4. 2000.

(2.) THE petitioner seeks quashing of these complaints primarily on the ground that the petitioner cannot be held responsible as on the date these cheques were presented and dishonoured, the petitioner was not in the company as he had resigned from the company much earlier and his resignation was accepted. So, it is the case of the petitioner that though he was one of the Directors in the Company but he resigned of his own accord through letter of resignation dated 25. 5. 1996, which was duly acknowledged and accepted by the Chairman vide letter dated 28. 8. 1996. It is the case of the petitioner that since he ceased to be the Director and was not dealing with the complainant or any other matter related to working of accused No. 1 company, therefore, he cannot be held responsible for dishonouring of these cheques. He also strengthened his case stating that Form 32 was issued by the authorities confirming about his resignation.

(3.) IT is further urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that in one of the cases bearing case No. 327 of 2002, Sh. S. N. Dhingra, the then additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, after perusing the documents, resignation letter dated 25. 5. 1996, the letter of acceptance dated 28. 8. 1996 and also on perusal of certified copy of Form 32 obtained from the office of the Registrar of Companies discharged the petitioner vide detailed order dated 5. 7. 2003 whereas in rest of the matters, Metropolitan Magistrates did not exercise those powers because of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Adalat Prasad vs. Rooplal Jindal; 2004 (7) Scale 137. It is further urged that since finality has been attained of a decision rendered by Sh. S. N. Dhingra, the then additional Sessions Judge, therefore, the present complaints which are of alike nature should also be brought to an end as there is a finding of the competent court that this petitioner had resigned much earlier when cheques in question were issued and dishonoured.