ANU MEHTA Vs. GUNMALA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As all these cases involve same questions of law and fact, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common judgment and order. This is a second round of litigation by and between the parties. By judgment and order dated 25th June, 2012, a learned Single Judge of this Court quashed the impugned criminal proceeding under Section 138 read with Section 141 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. In the earlier bout of litigation, the instant prosecution had been assailed before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners. In the said proceeding the High Court had framed two questions:-

(2.) After hearing the parties by judgment and order a learned Single Judge of this Court quashed the impugned proceeding, inter alia, on the ground of absence of material averments in the petition of complaint. This Court observed except the averment that the petitioners being the directors of the accused Company were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of day-to-day business of the Company, nothing had been stated in the complaint as to what part was played by them, how they are responsible for the funding of the Company, issuance of cheques and whether they had control of the funds of the Company. This Court did not express any opinion on the second question framed. The aforesaid judgment and order was assailed by the complainant/opposite party no.1 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Apex Court by its judgment and order dated 17th October, 2014, affirmed the quashing of the proceeding against Sobha Mehta. By the self-same judgment, the Apex Court remanded the matter for fresh hearing before this Court so far as the other directors were concerned in the light of the decisions considered and conclusion drawn in the aforesaid judgment. It was further observed in the said judgment that the matter be considered independently and as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six months. Pursuant to such order of remand the matter was placed before this Court for hearing on 28th November, 2014, whereupon the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that a review petition had been filed against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 17th October, 2014, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, the proceeding before this Court was adjourned. Finally, on 14.3.2015 the parties placed the order dismissing the review petition before this Court and matter was fixed for hearing on merits. On 23rd July, 2015, the petitioner took out an application for disclosing documents of unimpeachable quality to establish that they were not in charge of and responsible to the accused Company for the running of its day-to-day business at the time of commission of the offence. Such leave was given by this Court on 27th July, 2015, and thereupon on 3rd August, 2015, the petitioners filed three supplementary affidavits enclosing various documents in support of their respective claims. Affidavit-in-oppositions were filed to such supplementary affidavits and replies thereto have also been filed on behalf of the petitioners. Since the pleadings in the supplementary affidavits filed in support of the petitioners in all the matters are same in order to avoid further delay and dilation of the proceeding by order dated 24.9.2015. I directed that the Affidavit-in-oppositions and replies thereto filed in this case shall govern other connected cases also. The aforesaid narration of events is necessitated to demonstrate that it was the delay and dilation at the behest of the petitioners which is instrumental for the delay in disposal of the matter on remand.

(3.) Be that as it may, the moot question which falls for decision is whether the impugned proceeding instituted against the petitioners is liable to be quashed in view of the materials produced by them in the supplementary affidavits.