MANORANJAN NISHIKANTA KARMAKAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Code' for short) for quashing and setting aside the complaints being Criminal Complaint No.37531 of 2017, pending before the learned 5 th Additional Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 read with Sec. 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('NI Act' for short).

(2.) Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Learned APP Mr.Dave waives service of notice of rule for respondent no.1 and learned advocate Ms..Shah waives service of notice of rule for respondent no.2-complainant.

(3.) It is the case of the complainant that the accused no.1 is limited company, accused nos.2 and 3 are directors of the said company, accused nos.4 and 5 are additional director and Company Secretary of the accused no.1 company; that all the accused are responsible and connected with day-to-day affairs and administration of the accused no.1 company; that as the complainant company's directors wanted to set up mill project, they contacted accused sometime in July, 2015 and that the accused no.2 to 5 assured complainant that the administration and management of accused no.1 company is under their control; that on gaining trust, the complainant booked an order and the complainant and accused were bound to comply with the terms and conditions; that on demand from the accused, the complainant paid advance amount by way of cheques, which were encashed by the accused; the accused could not meet with the terms and conditions as agreed upon, so the complainant met accused no.2, who assured that if the work is not done, the advance received by the accused will be refunded; however, as the said work was not completed by the given date, the accused gave cheques for refund of the advance cheques, out of which, two were cleared and two were returned unpaid; that on contacting the accused, the accused assured that the cheques will be cleared or else the amount will be paid through RTGS; however, the cheques were returned unpaid; therefore, the demand notice was issued to the accused; however, the same was neither replied nor complied nor denied by the accused and therefore the impugned complaint is filed, in which the applicant is shown as accused no.5. The accused no.5-applicant has filed this application praying for quashing of the said complaint qua him.