MAHESH SAPRA Vs. SIEL CHEMICALS COMPLEX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") has been filed seeking quashing of complaint No. 22 dated 29.1.2003 titled "M/s Siel Chemical complex v. M/s Bakshi Chemical Complex (P) Limited and others" (Annexure P-6) filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "the Act") read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code as well as summoning order dated 9.4.2003 (Annexure P-7) and proceedings emanating therefrom. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that M/s Seil Chemical Complex through its attorney Sh. Rajiv Marwah General Manager (Works) (hereinafter referred as 'complainant') filed complaint under Section 138 of the Act on the allegations that an amount of Rs. 79,75,343.70 was outstanding against the accused on 30.11.2002 against supply of chemicals. In discharge of that liability, the accused issued cheque No. 168248 dated 16.12.2002 amounting to Rs. 79,75,344/- in favour of the complainant drawn on account No. 01600000012 in State Bank of India, SCB, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana. The cheque on its presentation to the drawee bank got dishonoured vide Memo dated 20.12.2002 with the remarks "not arranged for". The accused failed to make payment of the cheque amount despite receipt of legal notice dated 31.12.2002.

(2.) After recording preliminary evidence, the accused including the present petitioner were ordered to be summoned to face trial for offence under Section 138 of the Act.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complaint filed by the complainant company does not disclose as to how the petitioner is in-charge of and responsible for the affairs of the company M/s Bakshi Chemical Private Limited. It is further submitted that admittedly the petitioner is not the signatory of the cheque in dispute. It is argued with vehemence that in the absence of any averment in the complaint that the petitioner was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business, the petitioner can not be summoned to face trial for dishonour of cheque issued on behalf of the company under the signatures of Mr. Neeraj Bakhsi, co-accused in the case.