EMJEY FLEXIPACK PVT. LTD. Vs. PRABHUKRUPA METALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned advocate Mr. Maulik Shah does not press this application qua applicant Nos.1 and 2. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of, as not pressed qua applicant Nos.1 and 2.

(2.) Heard learned advocate Mr. Maulik Shah for applicant No.3.

(3.) It has been stated that applicant No.3 is not a signatory to the cheque in question and she is completely unaware about the affairs of the company and as such, the court below ought to have appreciated her role in the context of alleged offence. Apart from that, learned advocate Mr. Shah has submitted that applicant No.3 is in a position to deposit an amount of Rs.5 Lacs in overall within a period of one week in the registry of this Court and as such, some immediate breathing protection be given to her as warrant is sought to be executed as she is at present without any support with responsibility of children and husband has already surrendered. Learned advocate has further submitted that on account of this pandemic situation, applicant No.3 could not prosecute the matter diligently and as such, has requested that looking to her role in the alleged offence, the request may be considered. Further, learned advocate Mr. Shah has drawn the attention of this Court to a recent decision delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2021) 4 SCC 675 and has submitted that almost in a similar circumstance, applicant No.3 is also placed and as such, keeping in view the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in this decision as well, the case be considered. Further, learned advocate Mr. Shah has pointed out from the record that present applicant No.3 is not examined and from the deposition at Exh.10, it is culled out that applicant No.2 was dealing with the account affairs and he gave the cheque in question on behalf of the company. It has further been pointed out from application Exh.10 for seeking discharge that there is a clear assertion in paragraph 2 that the cheque in question was not taken from applicant No.3 nor it has been signed and as such, the presumption may not be against applicant No.3 and therefore, relying upon the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Apex Court at this stage of the proceedings, applicant No.3 is requesting the Court to consider the immediate protection. Additionally, from the cheque in question produced on page 19 of a separate paper-book index, it is revealed that it is not signed by present applicant No.3. Hence, in any case, no liability can be fastened upon applicant No.3. This situation was very much prevailing on record, however the learned court below could not appreciate in its proper perspective. Hence, learned advocate Mr. Shah has requested to consider the relief as prayed for in the revision application.