UJJAGAR SINGH Vs. AJAY KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this order, I shall dispose of and CRR No. 3787 of 2014 titled "Ujjagar Singh vs. Ajay Kumar Gupta and others" as these involve identical questions of law and facts for adjudication. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from CRR No. 3708 of 2014.

(2.) The petitioner filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short "the Act") against M/s Nova Lamiboards Private Limited, Rajesh Goyal, Nidhi Goyal and Ajay Kumar Gupta in regard to dishonour of cheque issued by the company towards discharge of its liability. The accused-respondents were summoned to face trial vide order dated 6.12.2013. Ajay Gupta, respondent No. 1 preferred revision petition against order dated 6.12.2013 which came to be allowed by the revisional court and as a result summoning order against the revisionist Ajay Kumar Gupta has been set aside.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that the revisional court has set aside summoning order primarily on two counts. Firstly, there is no averment in the complaint that Ajay Kumar Gupta is in charge and responsible for conduct of business of the company i.e. M/s Nova Lamiboards Private Limited. The second ground taken up by the revisional court is that Ajay Kumar Gupta has placed on record certified copy of Form No. 32 issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs showing that he had seized to be Director of the company with effect from 19.11.2009 but the cheques in question were issued in December 2012 and in the year 2013. It is vehemently argued that at the stage of summoning of accused, the accused has no right of hearing at pre process stage and, therefore, the revisional court cannot take into consideration any document relied upon by the accused which may be produced in defence. Another submission made by counsel is that it has been specifically mentioned in the complaint that the cheques were issued in presence and concurrence of Nidhi Goyal and Ajay Kumar Gupta and it is a question of evidence if these averments are sufficient to satisfy requirements in law keeping in view provisions of Section 141 of the Act. In support of his contention, he has relied upon judgments of this court in M/s Lily Hire Purchase Private Limited, Jalandhar vs. Darshal Lal,1997 1 Criminal 580 and Kailash Chand Jain vs. M/s Bibby Financial Services India Private Limited, 2014 2 RCR(Cri) 185.