VIRENDRA SOOD Vs. ALDA COELHO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the applicant has prayed for quashing of the process issued by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaon, Mumbai vide his order dated 20/3/1998 in Criminal Complaint No.594/S/98 filed by the respondent no.1 for an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "the Act").

(2.) THE applicant is a practicing Advocate based at New Delhi and was at the relevant time one of the members of the Board of Directors of the Company called "M/s.Schematic Finance Ltd." at New Delhi. It appears that the complainant had invested an amount of Rs.77,58,805.00 in the investment scheme announced by the accused no.1-company and towards the said amount, as and by way of discharge of its liability and/or part payment along with due interest returns, the company issued eight cheques in favour of the complainant and all drawn on Times Bank, D.N. Road Branch, Bombay. The details of the cheques were as under:-

(3.) /3/1998 and denied the liability. It appears, subsequently, that the complainant had also issued correction letters on or about 16/3/1998. Finally, the complainant approached the court below and filed eight different complaints in respect of each of the eight dishonored cheques, as mentioned hereinabove. The Criminal Complaint No.594/S/98 arises from the dishonored cheque nos.194122 and 199542. 4. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, on verification of the complaint, was pleased to issue process against the company as well as 12 other accused. The present applicant was imp leaded as accused no.8 in the said complaint. It appears that the complaint was filed through the complainant's Power of Attorney holder on or about 20/3/1998 and it was verified on the same day. On the very same day, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was pleased to issue the process against all the accused, including the present applicant. The applicant claims to have resigned as a Member of the Board of Directors of the accused no.1-company on or about 30/4/1998 and he states that he being a practicing Advocate, he was not a full time Director, a Joint Managing Director or Managing Director of the accused no.1-company. He being a professional, was invited to join the Board of the accused no.1-company and used to attend the board meetings as and when called and subject to his convenience. He emphatically states that he was not responsible for the day to day affairs of the said company and in its supervision and control he was not involved on day to day basis. In addition, he was not one of the signatories to the dishonored cheques and the cheques were signed by accused no.2, who held the post of Vice Chairman and Managing Director. The complainant in his complaint has made a vague statement that accused no.1 is a limited company and accused nos.2 to 13 are Directors/Officers of the said company and in-charge and responsible/liable for the control and conduct of day to day affairs and business of the accused no.1-company. She has further alleged that all the accused had committed an offence under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Act at the time when the cheques were bounced. She has not stated whether the accused no.8 was responsible for the day to day activities of the accused no.1-company in a specific manner and admittedly he was not either the Chairman, Vice Chairman, Managing Director or Joint Managing Director or Executive Director. Though this application was admitted vide order dated 12/2/1999, during the last about eight years, no return has been filed by the respondent no.1-complainant and, therefore, the contentions of the applicant that he was not responsible for the day to day affairs of the accused no.1-company have remained uncontroversial.