SANTOSH CHANDRA JHA SON OF LATE AWADH NARAIN JHA Vs. SANDEEP KUMAR SINGH SON OF LATE AJIT KUMAR SINGH AND; STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 6.12.1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 788(C) of 1999. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 406, 420 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that the complainant disclosed in his complaint petition that the complainant had given friendly loan to the accused No. 1, i.e. a juristic person being a private limited company in the name and style of Cilson Organics Ltd. It was disclosed in the complaint petition that total loan amount was Rs. 1,23,500/-, which was taken on different dates i.e. 12.9.1997 Rs. 35,000/-, 25.9.1997 Rs. 31,000/-, 25.9.1997 Rs. 25,000/- and on 30.9.1997 Rs. 32,500/-, total comes to Rs. 1,23,500/-. In the complaint petition, there was specific allegation against accused Nos. 1 to 7 of the complaint petition and it was alleged that accused Nos. 1 to 7 had persuaded the complainant to deposit the amount, so that the same can be refunded with 18 % interest at the appropriate stage. It has further been stated in the complaint petition that when the complainant requested the accused persons to refund the same, Lalan Kumar Jha, accused No. 4 issued two cheuqes on 5.1.1999 one bearing Cheque No. 420632 for Rs. 31,000/- and another bearing Cheque No. 420632 for Rs. 25,000/- drawn on Vijaya Bank and on the same day Chandra Mohan Jha, accused No. 2, issues another cheque No. 420643 dated 5.1.1999 for Rs. 32,000/- drawn on Vijaya Bank in favour of the complainant and on their presentation, the same were dishonored and thereafter the complaint petition was filed by the complainant and the learned Magistrate after conducting enquiry has passed the order of cognizance. Petitioner s name finds place at Sl. No. 11 of the accused column in the complaint petition, i.e. Annexure-1 to the petition.

(3.) Sri Arbind Kumar Jha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while pressing the present petition, submits that so far as the offence relating to Section 138 of the N.I. Act is concerned, the petitioner cannot be directly or indirectly held responsible. It was submitted that the petitioner had already tendered resignation from the Company, in which he was one of the Directors as on 5.7.1997 and the same was finally accepted by the Registrar of the Company. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed Form No. 32 issued under the Companies Act. In Col. No. 6, it has been mentioned that "In accordance with the Articles of Association of the Company the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 25th November, 1998, accepted his resignation with immediate effect". Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner had already resigned from the post of Director of the Company, there was no occasion for the complainant to implead the petitioner also as an accused for the offence, which was committed in the year 1999, the date on which cheques were issued by the said two Directors of the Company. So far as offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that save and except mentioning the name of the petitioner in the column of accused in the capacity of the Director, there is no assertion in the complaint petition as to whether the petitioner had committed any offence or not It was argued that on vicarious liability the petitioner cannot be held responsible.