A K GOENKA Vs. MAGMA LEASING LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under section 401/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure registered as C.R.R. No. 3623 of 2006 at the instance of the accused is directed for quashing the proceeding being case No. C 4482 of 1999 pending in the 12th Court of ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta under section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner/ accused.

(2.) The respondent/complainant filed complaint case before the ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta alleging that in discharge of existing liability arising out of a lease agreement between the complainant and the accused company dated 1.2.96, the accused-company Ms. Premier Vinyl Flooring Limited issued two cheques bearing numbers 790939 dated 1.6.99 and 790940 dated 1.9.99 on Canara Bank S.D Area New Delhi each for Rs. 4,35,000/- in favour of the complainant company. The said cheques were presented for clearance by the complainant company through Oriental Bank of Commerce, Park Street Branch, Calcutta but the same were returned dishonoured with the remark 'not arranged for' and 'exceeds arrangement'. The complainant company served demand notice upon the accused No. 1 company in the petition of complaint and notice was also sent to the accused Nos. 2 to 10 including the present petitioner/accused which were returned with postal remark "refused". The accused company did not pay any amount and as such the company was liable for penal provision of section 138 of the N I Act and accused Nos. 2 to 10 were vicariously liable under section 138/141 of the N I Act.

(3.) Cognizance was taken by the lld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the case was then transferred to the ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court who issued process against the accused persons. The accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 including the petitioner who is accused No. 9 in the petition of complaint as Director of the company appeared before the ld. Magistrate. The complainant withdrew the case against accused Nos. 2, 4, 8 and 10 at different times by filing petition before ld. Magistrate. On 15.10.01 the petitioner and two others filed application challenging the maintainability of the same case before the ld. Magistrate and the said petition was rejected by the order dated 22.3.2004.