RAVINDRA BHARATI Vs. S V ELECTRICALSLIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD finally with consent of both the parties. This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr. PC for quashment of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1127/04 pending in the Court of CJM, Dewas against present petitioner Ravindra Bharati only on the ground that necessary averments have not been made in the complaint to show that present petitioner was either Managing Director or Deputy Managing Director or signatory of the cheque or the person who is in charge or responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that respondent No. 1, S. V. Electricals limited filed a complainant before CJM, Dewas for the trial of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against respondent Nos. 2,3 and 4 as well as petitioner, on the allegation that a cheque amounting to Rs. 2,62,392/- was given by them to the complainant as consideration of the price amount of certain goods and it was promised that the amount of cheque will be paid by the bank on its presentation. The cheque was presented by the complainant in the branch of UTI Bank, Dewas which was returned by that bank on 17-4-04 to the complainant with an endorsement that sufficient fund is not available in the account of the Company. Thereafter a notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was given by the complainant to the present petitioner and other respondents and when the amount was not paid during the period prescribed for this purpose, then complaint was filed.

(3.) IN this petition the order of registration of complaint against the present petitioner is under challenge, on the ground that present petitioner is only a Director of the Company and there is no averment in the whole of the complaint to the effect that he is the person who is in charge or responsible for the affairs of the Company or for conducting its business. It has also been submitted that present petitioner is neither the Managing Director or the Joint director of the Company nor he is the signatory of the cheque and therefore for want of necessary averments in the complaint, the prosecution against present petitioner is not sustainable.