SURENDER JINDAL Vs. HATHWAY SYSTEMS INDIA PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 08.12.2008, passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Jr. Div.) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tijara, District Alwar, whereby the cognisance was taken against the petitioners for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and the order dated 30.03.2009, passed by the same court, whereby the application filed on behalf of the petitioners for dropping of the proceedings against them was rejected by the court below.

(2.) The notices were issued to the respondent-complainant and Mr. Rahul Tiwari has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent- complainant. This Court while considering the petition filed by the petitioners admitted the same on 22.05.2009 and stayed the proceedings of the trial court qua the petitioners. The respondent filed an application being I.A. No. 1416/2010 for vacation of the stay order dated 22.05.2009. The matter came up before this Court on 25.07.2011 and the same was adjourned to 08.08.2011. Ultimately the matter was called up on 09.08.2011, then both the counsel for the parties submitted that instead of deciding the application for vacation of stay order, the main petition itself should be heard and decided. In view thereof, the I. A. No.1416/ 2010 has become redundant and the matter was finally heard with the consent of the counsel for the parties.

(3.) Assailing the order taking cognisance and the order whereby the application filed by the petitioners for dropping of the proceedings was rejected, the counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in this case, the complainant filed a complaint against the three accused-persons, namely R.K. Loom Pvt. Ltd., through Director Mr. Surendra Jindal, Mr. Surendra Jindal, Director R.K. Loom Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Vinod Gandotra, Director R.K. Loom Pvt. Ltd. It is further submitted that it is the specific allegation of the complainant, vide para No.5 of his complaint was that the cheques in question were issued by the accused No.3. Mr. Vinod Gandotra himself and that too in his personal capacity and as such, the prosecution of the Company and the Director for the bouncing of the said cheques was impermissible. The copies of the cheques. which have bounced, have also been annexed to the petition. Thus, as per the counsel for the petitioners, in absence of any allegation as regards the petitioners being in any manner connected or concerned with the cheques in question, the prosecution of the petitioners was absolutely unwarranted. It has also been submitted that as per the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company M/s. R.K. Loom Pvt. Ltd., the only two Directors in the Company are Mr. Rahul Jindal and Mr. Kiran Jain. The petitioner No.2 was not the Director of the said Company and as such the prosecution of the petitioners was unwarranted. The counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of this High Court of M/s . Tata Finance Ltd. v. J.S. Fourwheel Motors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.,2002 2 WLC(Raj.) 434 and on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Jugesh Sehgal v. Shamsher Singh Gogi, 2009 14 SCC 683 : ( 2009 AIR(SC) (Supp 2022)] and Harshendra Kumar D. v. Rebatilata Koley & Ors.,2011 1 SCC (Cri) 1139 : ( 2011 AIR(SC) 1090 ].