DEEPA SINGH Vs. RATNA LAL & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all these four revisional applications have been filed by the same petitioner with common issue arises out of four separate orders dated 07.11.2013 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court at Calcutta in four cases, i) C/24521 of 2012, ii) C/24522 of 2012, iii) C/24523 of 2012 and iv) C/24524 of 2012. All these four revisional applications have been heard on submission of learned counsels for the parties and taken up together for consideration and disposal by a composite judgment. All the said cases in the Court below have been filed under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In all those cases present petitioner has been made accused no. 7 as a director of M/S Arvind International Limited. Aforesaid C/24521 of 2012 has been filed by Mr. Ratan Lal as complainant alleging dishonour of a cheque for Rs.5 lakh; C/24522 of 2012 has been filed by M/S Ratna Kamal Holdings Private Limited alleging dishonour of a cheque for Rs.9 lakh; C/24523 of 2012 has been filed by Smt. Anita Agarwal alleging dishonour of a cheque for Rs.6 lakh; and C/24524 of 2012 has been filed by M/S Jain Vincom Private Limited alleging dishonour of a cheque for Rs.5 lakh. In all those cases cheques were allegedly issued by M/S Arvind International Limited. Copies of complaints of those cases have been annexed to the revisional applications under Sec. 401 read with Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.). Present petitioner as accused no. 7 in all those cases filed separate petitions on 12.06.2013 praying for her discharge from the cases on the ground that she was neither a director nor an executive of accused company M/S Arvind International Limited. At the relevant point of time learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court at Calcutta passed the impugned orders dated 07.11.2013 with observation that ....if the parties are in dispute over a question of fact, the same cannot be decided without going into trial. It shall be the duty of the complainant to prove by adducing cogent evidence that accused no. 7 was responsible for day to day affairs of the accused company at the relevant point of time, during trial. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition filed by accused no. 7 is rejected on contest, without cost. In these revisional applications petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the aforesaid orders dated 07.11.2013 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in the cases mentioned above and for discharge of the petitioner from those cases wherein she has been made accused no. 7.

(2.) At the time of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was never a director of M/S Arvind International Limited he has claimed that the petitioner joined the company as secretary on 16.10.2012 which is long after issue of the impugned cheques. Therefore, the proceeding against the petitioner does not lie. He further submitted that the petitioner may be discharged from the said four cases pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Learned counsel advanced his arguments that at the time of issue of alleged dishonour of cheques the petitioner was not a director of the accused company and she was not responsible in any manner for the conduct of business of the accused company and she was not in charge of the business of the accused company at the relevant time. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that although the petitioner was alleged as responsible in the petition of complaint relating to the issue of dishonoured cheque but admittedly no demand notice was served on her and from that angle also the case against her is liable to be quashed. In support of his arguments he relied upon the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in the cases of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs. Neeta Bhalla and Another reported in 2005 Cri.L.J. 4140 , A.K. Singhania Vs. Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd. and Another reported in 2013 (4)Crimes 421 , S.W. Palanitkar and Ors Vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in 2001 (4) Suppl. SCR 397 and National Small Industries Corporation Limited Vs. Harmeet Singh Paintal and Another reported in 2010 Cri.LJ 1907 . He also cited a decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Chaitan M. Maniar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2004 Cri.L.J. 2343 and two decisions of this High Court in the cases of Srabonti Ganguli Vs. Industrial Development Bank of India reported in (2014) 1 C Cr.L.R. (Cal) 887 and the case of Lav Jhingan Vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2012 (5) CHN (Cal) 140 .

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the complainant opposite party submitted that in the court below the petitioner prayed for her discharge in a summons case which is not permissible in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Rejection of her said prayer in the court below is proper and that order cannot be challenged here in this revisional application. He relied upon the principles of law discussed in two decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in the cases of Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal and Others reported in 2004 (6) Supreme 371 and Subramanium Sethuraman Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in (2005) 1 C Cr. L.R. (SC) 256 .