BIJAYA MANJARI SATPATHY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this CRLMC seeks the indulgence of the Court U/S.482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the complaint in 1.C.C. Case No.60 of 2014 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Angul in an application U/S.482 of Cr.P.C. for not arraigning the trust as an accused in terms of Sec. 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short the N.I. Act).

(2.) Facts in precise are opposite party No.2-Kanheilal Choudhury instituted the complaint in 1.C.C. Case No.60 of 2014 against the petitioner as General Secretary, M/s. Bijay Laxmi Trust and opposite party No.3- Dinabandhu Mishra in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Angul for commission of offences U/S.138 of N.I. Act on account of dishonour of cheque bearing No.083955 dtd. 31/12/2013 issued by opposite party No.3 as President of M/s. Bijay Laxmi Trust for an amount of Rs.7,30,550.00 (Rupees Seven Lakh Thirty Thousand and Five Hundred Fifty) as the cheque on presentation returned back to opposite party No.2 as unpaid with endorsement from Bank of Baroda, Angul Branch on 18/2/2014 "account closed". Opposite party No.2 accordingly issued Demand notice to petitioner and opposite party No.3 within the prescribed period and when they did not respond, opposite party No.2 instituted the aforesaid complaint. On perusal of complaint and initial statement of complainant filed in the shape of affidavit together with documents annexed with the affidavit, learned S.D.J.M., Angul by the impugned order took cognizance of offence U/S.138 of N.I. Act and issued process in the form of summons to the petitioner and opposite party No.3. On receipt of summon, the petitioner approach this Court by way of this CRLMC petition U/S.482 of Cr.P.C.

(3.) In the course of hearing of the CRLMC, Mr. Mohit Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a preliminary objection at the threshold on the maintainability of the complaint for want of trust arraigned as an accused in pursuance to the provision of Sec. 141 of N.I. Act. In raising such objection, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the cheque in question was neither issued by the petitioner in individual capacity nor in the capacity of a General Secretary of the Trust, but the cheque was issued by the opposite party No.3 as the President of Trust and thereby, primarily the criminal liability cannot be fastened on the petitioner. It is further submitted by him that Sec. 141 of N.I. Act mandates impletion of the trust as a party since the cheque in question was issued by a person for/on behalf of the trust and when the mandatory provision has not been complied, the complaint itself is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting inter alia above issue of maintainability of the complaint prays to quash it by relying upon the decisions in Dillip Hariramani vs. Bank of Baroda; AIR 2022 SC 2258 and Aparna A. Saha vs. Self Developers Pvt. Ltd and others; AIR 2013 SC 3210.