VIJAY KUMAR SYAL Vs. ARIHANT STEELS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is sought for here is to quash the complaint in respect of the petitioner herein, who is shown as A-4 in C.C.No.6762 of 2000 on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras.

(2.) As could be seen from the copy of the complaint filed, the respondent has filed the said complaint, which was taken cognizance by that court, alleging that in the business transaction, the first accused M/s.Rita bottling Machines Limited, represented by its Director Vinay Kumar Syal was liable to pay Rs.95,372/- along with interest; that towards that liability, the cheques, the subject matter of the complaint, were issued and signed by the second and third accused, as Authorised Signatories and Directors respectively, and the fourth accused, the petitioner herein was also added, since he was a Director of the Company, who was also responsible to answer.

(3.) Arguing for the petitioner, the learned Counsel would submit that it is true that the petitioner who is shown as the 4th accused, was originally a Director in the first accused Company; that he subsequently resigned therefrom; that a notice was issued by the complainant Company to the petitioner also along with the other accused, which was suitably replied stating that he has nothing to do with the transaction either, and he ceased to be the Director of the Company, and hence, he was not liable to answer; that despite the same, a complaint has been made with the averments that he was a Director of the first accused Company and was also responsible to answer, and under such circumstances, without any material whatsoever, the VII Metropolitan Magistrate has taken cognizance of the complaint including the petitioner also, and hence, it has got to be quashed. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel relied on a decision of this Court rendered by M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J., and reported in 2002 (3) CTC 342 (S.N.BANGUR AND THREE OTHERS VS. M/S.KLEN & MARSHALLS MFRS. & EXPORTERS PVT. LTD).