NISHIT JAIN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Special Criminal Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner-original Accused No. 3 to quash and set aside the impugned Complaint, being Criminal Case No. 882/2009 pending in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, lodged by Respondent No. 2-original complainant against the petitioner and others for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with Sections 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) Respondent No. 2-original complainant has instituted Criminal Case No.882/2009 pending in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad against the petitioner (original Accused No. 3) and others for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with Sections 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of cheque issued by original Accused No. 1-Company and signed by original Accused No. 2 as Director of Accused No. 1 -Company. It appears that Respondent No. 2-Company is having its corporate office at Mumbai, however, its registered office is at Ahmedabad. It also appears that the disputed property in question, for which cheque was issued, is at Ahmedabad. However, the cheque in question was issued from the corporate office at Mumbai, which was given to Respondent No. 2-original complainant at Mumbai and it was deposited by Respondent No. 2-original complainant at Calcutta. It also appears that the notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was issued from the corporate office of Respondent No. 2-original complainant at Mumbai and the same was served upon the accused persons at Calcutta. The learned Magistrate by order dated 16/01/2009 has been pleased to issue summons/process against the accused persons, inclusive of the petitioner, for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid the petitioner-original Accused No. 3 has preferred the present Special Criminal Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) Shri S. Ganguly, learned advocate appearing with Shri Kunal P. Vaishnav, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has requested to quash and set aside the impugned criminal Complaint/case against the petitioner and/or the order passed by the learned Magistrate issuing process against the petitioner in the said Complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act mainly on the following three grounds (1) that the petitioner was/is never the Director of original Accused No. 1 -Company (2) that the Court at Ahmedabad has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the impugned Complaint and (3) there are no specific averments or allegation made in the impugned Complaint specifically submitting the specific role attributed to the petitioner that he was in day to day affairs and management of Accused No. 1 - Company and/or the role played by him.