JAGMOHAN CHAWLA Vs. YES BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by the petitioner for quashing of a complaint titled M/s Yes Bank. Vs. M/s Three Star Paper Mills Ltd & Anr. bearing no. 723/2009 pending in the Court of Sh. Ankur Jain, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka, Delhi and the proceedings arising there from.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant M/s Yes Bank filed a complaint under Section 138 read with section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with section 420 IPC against M/s Three Star Paper Mills Ltd and Jagmohan Chawla, the Director of the said paper mills. The allegations were that the aforesaid company through its Director had availed certain loan facilities, and thereafter, issued cheques for repayment of the outstanding amount due. It is alleged that cheques no. 871063 and 871065 dated 15th August, 2008 for a sum of Rs.53,479/- each were issued in favour of the respondent/complainant M/s Yes Bank. These cheques were drawn on Bank of Baroda, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. On presentation both these cheques bounced on the ground that they exceeded the arrangement. The return memo dated 29 the October, 2008 was issued by the banker of the accused person to respondent no. 1 herein. The respondent/complainant issued a notice dated November, 2008 to the paper mills as well as to the present petitioner Jagmohan Chawla accused through registered post requiring them to make the payment within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this notice. It is alleged that this notice of the petitioner was replied by the present petitioner Ion 25th November, 2008 wherein it was stated that the petitioner has resigned as a Director on 20th September, 2007 which was accepted by the company Ion 21st September, 2007 and a requisite form no. 32 was also filed with the Registrar of Companies on 5th February, 2008, and therefore, the petitioner has not responsible for the commission of any offence as the cheque got dishonoured at a later date.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on case titled DCM Financial Services Ltd. Vs. J. N. Sareen & Am. 2008 VII AD (S.C.) 446 the Court held that as the person concerned had ceased to be the Director much prior to the alleged dishonour of the cheque, therefore, he could not be held liable. Similarly, it was contended that since the petitioner had ceased to be the Director much before the presentation of the cheque by the respondent, and therefore, on that ground also he could not have been summoned.