MACI ORGANICS LTD Vs. DHINGRA TRADING COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of Crl. Misc. Nos. M-8912 and 9646 of 2013.

(2.) The respondent had appeared and had filed their reply. In response to Crl. Misc. No. M-8912 of 2013 it was pleaded that notice was issued regarding dishonour of two cheques bearing Nos. 097156 and 097157 for a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- each and notice was received by the petitioner but he did not send any reply. In response to Crl. Misc. No. M-9646 of 2013, it was pleaded that notice was issued regarding seven cheques and the total cheque amount was Rs. 8,06,779/- but inadvertently numbers of four cheques was not mentioned in the notice and it was a clerical mistake but the total amount was correctly shown and no response to the notice was received.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both the complaints should be quashed alongwith the summoning order as the petitioner Company did not receive any notice prior to the filing of the complaint. It was urged that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aneeta Handa vs. M/s Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd., 2012 2 RCR(Cri) 854 had observed that the prosecution of the Director of a Company without arraying the company as accused was not maintainable and the proceedings were quashed and if the principles are applied to the present case the proceedings should be quashed. It was urged that no complaint is maintainable without a statutory notice as provided under Negotiable Instruments Act and in this case Company is a separate juristic person and notice was necessary. My attention was drawn to the copy of the notice and it was urged that the notice was sent to Kamal Kumar, Director of the Company and not to the Company. Reliance was also placed upon Anil Gupta vs. Star India Pvt. Ltd. and another, 2014 3 RCR(Cri) 587.