ASHWINKUMAR MITTAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned advocate Mr. Chetan Pandya for learned advocate Mr. Bhadrish Raju for the applicants, Ms. Moxa Thakkar, learned APP for the State and Mr. Dharmesh Shah, learned advocate for respondent No.2 ­ original complainant in all the matters.

(2.) THE common question which arises in this group of applications is whether without arraying the Company as accused, the present complaints are maintainable or not as provided under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The impugned complaints are filed by respondent No.2 before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad under Sections 138, 141 and 142 of the Act. As the question which arises in this group of applications is common, the same are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(3.) MR . Chetan Pandya, learned advocate for the applicant has pointed out that the complainant has filed these complaints, wherein the applicant has been arrayed as accused in his capacity as Director of the Company named M/s. Hemant Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. However, all the complaints are filed without arraying the said Company as accused. It is pointed out that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Aneeta Hada Vs. M/s. Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2012) 5 SCC 661, the mandatory requirement for impleading the Company as one of the accused as provided under Section 141 is not complied with and as the Company has not been made an accused, no prosecution is maintainable against the present applicant as Director of the said Company. It is therefore submitted that only on the sole ground, the complaints deserve to be quashed and set aside against the Director of the said Company. Mr. Pandya therefore submitted that the applications deserve to be allowed.