ANIL CHANANA Vs. GYANI RAM RULIYA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of aforementioned 132 petitions as common questions of fact and law arise therein. The facts are being extracted from CRM-M-36869-2018 tilted as " Anil Chanana Vs. M/s Gyani Ram Ruliya Ram"

(2.) A complaint No. 2597/2017 dated 04.10.2017 titled as M/s Gyani Ram Ruliya Ram vs. Amira Pure Food Pvt. Limited, was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Vide order of even date, the accused persons (respondents) mentioned therein, were summoned to stand trial. The name of the petitioner finds mention at Serial No. 2 in the list of respondents. A perusal of the complaint, reveals that the respondents therein, are 'Amira Pure Food Private Limited' through Chairman and respective Directors. The petitioner has also been impleaded allegedly being a Director. The cheque in dispute is Annexure P-2 on record. The same has been drawn by the authorized signatory on behalf of Amira Pure Food Private Limited.

(3.) The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the complaint and summoning order on the ground that the petitioner ceased to be a Director of the Company w.e.f. 10.02.2006. It has been argued that this fact is contained in Form No. 32 dated 202.2006, submitted to the Department of Company Affairs. It further finds corroboration in the Annual Return of the Company (annexed as Annexure P-5), wherein, in the list of Director/Manager/Secretary, it is recorded that the petitioner ceased to be a Director w.e.f. 10.02.2006. The said documents are 'public documents' within the meaning of the term according to section 74(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The cheque in dispute is dated 26.04.2017. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner was not a Director in the Company on the date of issuance of cheque. It has further been argued that the petitioner cannot ever be made liable as a "person incharge of the affairs of the company or responsible to it for its business" as no specific allegation has been made against him in the complaint regarding the manner in which he was responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company. Thus, the filing of the complaint and issuance of summoning order, is an abuse of the process of law and they deserve to be quashed qua the petitioner.