ANILKUMAR RIKHABCHAND JAIN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Learned A. P. P. Mr. U. R. Bhatt waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent no. 1 while Mr. N. V. Gandhi waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent no. 2-original complainant.

(2.) THIS application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is preferred by the applicant with a prayer to quash and set aside the complaint filed by the opponent no. 2 being Private Criminal complaint no. 1802/2004 on the file of the judicial Magistrate, First Class (1st Court), surat as also the issuance of summons thereto qua the present applicant. The respondent no. 2 herein lodged Private complaint no. 1802 of 2004 against the present applicant and four other persons including Arihant Dyeing and Printing Mills private Limited for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the learned Magistrate had issued summons for the said offences.

(3.) THE respondent no. 2-complainant, in the complaint alleged that he was the director of accused no. 1-Company and had subsequently resigned on 30-3-2003. At the time of resignation of the respondent no. 2, one of the Directors of the accused no. l-Company entered into a Memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the respondent no. 2 and three others wherein it was understood between the parties that the first party would pay Rs. 41 lacs (Rupees forty one lacs only ). To the second party. Accordingly, cheques bearing nos. 825913 drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Surat Branch, for Rs. 4 Lacs came to be issued and on presentation of the said cheque by the opponent no. 2 in the bank on 1-4-2004, the same were dishonoured with the endorsement "payment stoppd by drawer" on 2-4-2004. The respondent no. 2 issued a statutory notice on 15-4-2004 to all the Directors including the present applicant alleging that the present applicant was in charge of the day to day affairs of the company and responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company. The applicant replied to the notice by communication dated 19-4-2004. However, since the applicant had not made the payment of the amount within 15 days of the notice the respondent no. 2 filed Private criminal Complaint as referred to in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present criminal Misc. Application.