PRABHAT LAL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ashwini Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jitendra Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State. None appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.2.

(2.) The instant application under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the summoning order dtd. 1/9/2018 and the revisional order dtd. 14/5/2019 arising out of Complaint Case No. 1475 of 2016 (Kamlesh Gupta vs. Prabhat Lal), under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, 'the N.I. Act'), P.S.- Babina, District- Jhansi, pending in the court of Presiding Officer Additional Court, Jhansi.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the instant case, the impugned cheque was issued by the Ayurveda Aasha Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. through its authorized signatory in favour of the opposite party no.2, Kamlesh Gupta s/o Shri Kailash Narain Gupta. The said cheque was presented for encashment and was dishonoured. Thereafter, the opposite party no.2 has sent a legal demand notice to the applicant-Prabhat Lal, the authorized signatory of the company without issuing any notice to the Company. Thereupon, when no response was received from the said authorized signatory the instant complaint case has been filed by the opposite party no.2, not against the company but only against the authorized signatory in his personal capacity, which is impermissible in law. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that in view of the restrictions under Sec. 141 of the N.I. Act, without implicating the company, the authorized signatory alone cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act. Therefore the instant complaint case is not sustainable in law and is liable to be quashed.