NILESH SHAH Vs. JYOTI RANI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the complaint CR No.2491/2 dated 4.11.2010 and RBT No.756/2 dated 15.12.2010, titled as " Jyoti Rani v. M/s Vee India Retail Pvt. Ltd. and others", under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana and summoning order dated 1.11.2010.

(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was neither the Director nor incharge of the day to day affairs of the company-respondent No.2 and on the relevant date, the petitioner is not the signatory of the cheque. He refers to Form 32, and states that the petitioner had resigned from the respondent- company and he also sent his resignation to the Registrar of Companies. He cites Venkatesh Waran and another v. Singravel Yarn Traders, 2010 4 RCR(Cri) 426, Anita Malhotra v. Apparel Export Promotion Council, 2011 6 LawHerald(SC) 4767 , Saroj Kumar Poddar v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr, 2007 1 LawHerald(SC) 273 and Sri Chhedi lal Gupta v. Shri Suresh Damani and others, 2010 6 RCR(Cri) 1232Heard.

(3.) The learned JMIC while summoning the petitioner has categorically recorded that there is prima facie sufficient material to issue process against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The statement of complainant Jyoti Rai has been recorded and she has tendered her affidavit alongwith the requisite documents including cheque, memo, legal notice, postal receipt etc. The petitioner was Director of the company on the relevant date or not, this being a disputed question of fact, the Court is not inclined to go into the matter at this stage. Dismissed.