FMI INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. are that the petitioner Company filed a complaint under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short the Act) against the respondents on the allegations that two cheques dated 30.9.1995 were issued by the Montari Industries Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred to as the Company) in favour of the petitioner Company. When the cheques presented for payment they were dishonoured on the ground that sufficient funds were not available. A notice was then sent by the petitioner calling upon the Company to pay the amount but it failed to make the payment. This was followed by a complaint under Sections 138/141 of the Act. On the complaint being filed, process was issued against Ms. Ruchi Puri and Mr. Pradeep Narula alongwith the Company. The learned Magistrate did not take cognizance of the offence against the respondents. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 18.2.1997, the petitioner has come up before this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent Bhai Manjit Singh is the Managing Director of the Company, respondents Bhai Mohan Singh is the Chairman, Bhai Mohan Singh Nagar, Gurpreet Singh, Vineet Virmani, Rajeev Sawhney, Prem Pandhi, Mantosh Sondhi, Ranjeetmal Bhandari, S.S. Grewal and Sirichand are Directors of the Company and A.S. Khosia is Group Executive Vice President - Finance of the Company and as such they are liable to be tried for violating the provisions of Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Act. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Magistrate has committed an illegality in not taking cognizance of the offence against the said persons.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that there is nothing on record to show that at the relevant time, the respondents were in-charge of and were also responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business or that the offence complained of was committed with their consent or connivance and thus the learned Magistrate was perfectly justified in not taking cognizance of the offence against the said persons. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in MCD v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi & Ors., AIR 1983 SC 67; State of Haryana v. Brij Lal Mittal & Ors., JT 1998 (3) SC 584=IV (1998) SLT 796=II (1998) CCR 246 (SC); and a decision of this Court in Mahendra Pratap Singh Ratra & Anr. v. M/s. N.K. Metals & Anr., 1998 (2) JCC (Delhi) 270, in support of the said contention.