RITA SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed under Sec. 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, for quashment of order dated 24.3.2003, passed by Special Magistrate, Indore in Criminal Case No. 1043 of 2003 against petitioner for taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Ac (hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity).

(2.) THE short facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 Chetan Mohanwani filed a Criminal Complaint No. 1043 of 2003 in the Court of Special Magistrate, Indore for trial of the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of he Act, against five persons including the present petitioner. In Paragraph No. 3 of the complaint, it has been stated that accused No. 2 Arvind Kumar Singh is the Managing Director of the accused No. 1 .Company, accused No. 3 i.e. present petitioner and accused No. 4 are its Directors and accused No. 5 is its signing authority. Complainant respondent No. 2 was appointed as Commercial Manager in that company and was requested to provide a loan of Rs. 6,10,000/-(Rs. Six Lacs Ten Thousand) to the company Rs. 11,00,000/- (Rs. Eleven Lacs) were also obtained from him and Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lacs) were promised to be paid to him as per the agreement. So in all, Rs. 19,10,000/- (Rs. Nineteen Lacs Ten Thousand) were due to be paid to him: On 20.2.2003 accused Nos. 2 and 4 handed over a cheque to the complainant of Rs. 19,10,000/ - which was signed by accused' Nos. 4 and 5 in the capacity of Director and Signing Authority of 2 and 4 handed over a cheque to the complainant of Rs. 19,10,000/-, which was signed by accused Nos. 4 and 5 in the capacity of Director and Signing Authority of company. When the same was presented in the bank, then the cheque was dishonoured and thereafter a notice was given under the provision of Sec. 138 of the Act, which was replied by the accused persons, including the present petitioner but the cheque amount was not paid within prescribed period, therefore, the complaint was filed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the provisions of Sec. 141 of the Act and submitted that for the purpose of making liable any other person, than the company for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Act, it is necessary to avert that such person was in-charge of and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the company, at the time of the alleged offence. Without making any specific averments in this regard, the requirement of Sec. 141 cannot be said to be satisfied and merely being Director of company is not sufficient to fasten criminal liability upon the persons under Sec. 141 of the Act, because every Director cannot be deemed to be in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company.