ROADWAYS INDIA LTD. AND ORS. Vs. RANDIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, who are arrayed as A5 to A10, have come forward with this petition seeking for a direction, to quash the proceedings in respect of the petitioners in C.C. No. 385 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Trichy, in respect of an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, by stating that the first petitioner/A5 is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, being run in the name and style of M/s. Roadways India Ltd., doing the business throughout India and having branch at Trichy. The petitioners/A5 to A10 are nothing to do with the issuance of cheque and also on day to -day business activities. A5 and A6 are the Directors, who stationed at Delhi; A7 and A8 are the Deputy General Managers, stationed at Secundarabad; A9 and A10 are the Vice Presidents, stationed at New Delhi, and they are not responsible with the day today administrative business of Trichy Branch. It is further stated that there is no specific averment in the complaint against the petitioners/accused A5 to A10 with respect to their involvement in the day today activities with the company's affairs and therefore, the petitioners shall not be prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) TO substantiate the same, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. -vs - Neeta Bhalla and another reported in : (2007) 4 SCC 70, which was followed in the subsequent decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in A.K. Singhania -vs - Gujarat State Fertilizer Co Ltd., and another with Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd., and another -vs - Vikram Prakash and another reported in : 2013 AIR SCW 6195. He further submits that the Manager in Trichy, has committed some irregularity and misappropriated the sum, pursuant to which and based on the complaint, a case in Crime No. 1537 of 2014 is pending before the Fort Police Station, Trichy and hence, he prayed for quashing of the proceedings.

(3.) CONSIDERING the submissions on both sides and perusal of the typed set of papers, it is seen that the respondent herein preferred a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, wherein it has been stated that the fourth accused had given a cheque for discharging legally enforceable debt, which, on presentation for encashment, has been returned as "insufficient funds". Therefore, after issuing notice, he preferred the complaint.