KOMAL MURJANI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One basic and common question of law since being raised by the sole petitioner in each of the CRLMC filed U/S.482 of Cr.P.C. with prayer to quash the impugned order passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Rural, Rourkela taking cognizance of offence U/S. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, 'NI Act') and issuing process against her in each of the seven complaints, the same were heard together and disposed of by this common order with consent of learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) This Court wishes to clarify that none appears for the complainant(s)-respondent(s) despite service of notices on them as confirmed in postal tracking report.

(3.) Facts in common in all the CRLMCs except 3259 and 3260 of 2016, are that Opposite Party No.2 (OP-2) was a partnership firm with OP-3 and OP-4 as its partners by having Office at Goibhanga, Kalunga in the District of Sundargarh and was dealing in the business of casting and allied matters at the relevant time, whereas the petitioner was the Director and OP-6 was the Managing Director of OP-5, a registered Company, who was having its registered Office at Kolkata and local Office at Sambalpur and there were some transactions between OP-2 and OP-5. It was averred in all the CRLMCs except in 3259 and 3260 of 2016 that OP-6 was the authorized signatory and operating the business of OP-5, whereas petitioner was actively participating and controlling the affairs of the Company (OP-5) and on the verbal order, OP-2 supplied certain quantity of C.I., lngot Mould to OP-5 each on different dates at specified rate and in lieu of payment, OP-6 issued cheques for OP-5 in favour of OP-2 for each transaction, but such cheques on presentation with Bankers of OP-2 returned unpaid being dishonoured with endorsement 'exceeds arrangements' or 'insufficient funds' giving rise to cause of action to OP-2 to 4 against the petitioner, OP-5 and 6 after they refused to receive the demand notices issued by OP-2 to 4.