RAMA GUPTA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are as under:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner before the trial court is absolutely the abuse of the process of law. He has further contended that the petitioner was not aware about the alleged execution of Memorandum of Understanding dated 6.11.2011 and also for handing over the cheque for INR 75.00 lakh. There is no role of the petitioner in entering into alleged transaction. He has further contended that the petitioner neither signed the Memorandum of Understanding dated 6.11.2011 nor petitioner has signed the cheque. Therefore, the petitioner was neither In char gen or person responsible for the working affairs of the company. He has further contended that cheque in question was issued in favour of the complainant in his name and in the individual capacity, which has been alleged to have been received by the complainant on behalf of the company named M/s. Vibgyor Ceramics Ltd. The petitioner has been impleaded in the present case in her individual capacity. The complainant has failed to establish the role of the accused petitioner as In charge or responsible to the company for the conduct of the business. He has further contended that he has also submitted in the reply to the notice under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act that the petitioner has no concern with the affairs of the company, therefore, she cannot be made liable for the affairs of the company. The cheque was issued by the co-accused Anil Kumar Gupta not in the individual capacity but as the Director of the Company i.e. M/s. CCL International Limited, whereas complainant has not impleaded Company as accused and for fastened any criminal liability upon a Director, company is the necessary party and without this, no liability can be fastened upon the petitioner and co-accused in the individual capacity in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner's name was not mentioned in the Memorandum of Understanding dated 6.11.2011 as Director nor she has signed the MOU and further she is not managing the day to day affairs of the company as such the petitioner is not liable for the payment, hence proceedings pending against the petitioner before the court below or the trial court be set-aside. For this purpose, he has cited the following judgments: