S C CHHABRA Vs. GONTERMANN PEIPERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of 17 petitions, bearing Criminal Misc. No. 20573-M of 2001, 20575-M of 2001, 20577-M of 2001, 20579-M fo 2001, 20581-M of 2001, 20583-M of 2001, 48751-M of 2001, 48753-M of 2001, 48755-M of 2001, 48757-M of 2001, 48759-M of 2001, 48761-M of 2001, 48766-M of 2001, 48765-M of 2001, 48767-M of 2001, 48769-M of 2001 and 48771-M of 2001, filed by the complainants against M/s. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Limited and its various office bearers, including Managing Director and Directors. Six of the petitions have been filed by accused-petitioner S. C. Chhabra, the other six petitions have been filed by accused-petitioners S. K. Chhibar and R. L. Sahni, while remaining five petitions have been filed by accused-petitioners S. K. Sahani and V. K. Garg, Directors of M/s. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in the 17 petitions, all the 17 petitions are being disposed of by a single order. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Criminal Misc. No. 20573-M of 2001 titled as "S. C. Chhabra v. M/s. Gontermann Peipers (India) Ltd. are being noticed.

(2.) The complainant M/s. Gontermann Peipers (India) Ltd. had filed the criminal complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against M/s. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd. as accused No. 1 and 10 other office bearers of the said company, including the Managing Director, the Chairman and the Directors of the said company. In the said complaint, it was alleged that the complainant-company had been supplying cotton yarn to the accused-company and the supplies started in October, 1997 and that total material worth Rs. 1,34,68,299.00 was supplied, out of which total payment of Rs. 47,84,000.41p. had been paid from time to time and that there was a total balance of Rs. 86,85,298.59p. which was still payable by the accused-company to the complainant. It was alleged that in order to clear the above said outstanding amount, the accused-company issued six cheques, out of which two cheques were dated 2-1-1998, two cheques were dated 2-2-1998 and two cheques were dated 3-2-1998, as detailed in para 5 of the complaint. The said complaint was filed in respect of one of the two cheques dated 2-1-1998 for Rs. 5,34,551.53p. while the remaining five complaints had been filed in respect of the other cheques. It was alleged in the complaint that all these cheques were presented but the same were dishonoured, vide dishonouring memo dated 28-2-1998 and the complainant-company has been informed by its bankers on various dates. It was alleged that as per the dishonouring memo dated 28-2-1998, the cheques were dishonoured with the remarks "Funds Insufficient". It was alleged that in spite of being informed by the complainant-company in this regard, the accused had failed to make any payment uptill now. It was further alleged that accused No. 1 is the company, accused No. 2 is the signatory to the cheque (also the authorised signatory-cum-Managing Director/Director of the said company), accused No. 3 was the General Manager, accused No. 4 was the Chairman, while accused Nos. 5 to 11 were the Directors, "who were actively involved in the entire business of the company and were responsible to the company for the conduct of the business as well as the company and were responsible for the enactment of the cheques and were having the knowledge of the issuance of the cheques, as well as dishonouring of the cheques. Therefore, all these persons are guilty of an offence committed under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ."

(3.) After the criminal complaints were filed, the learned Judicial Magistrate, recorded the preliminary evidence of the complainant and thereafter, vide order dated 30-7-1998, the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, ordered the summoning of the petitioners (in all the cases) as accused for the offence under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Aggrieved against the filing of the criminal complaints and the summoning orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate in all the six criminal complaints. Various Directors of the accused-company filed the above mentioned 17 petitions in this Court, seeking the quashment of the criminal complaint and the summoning orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate, being illegal and abuse of the process of Court.