Rana Gurjeet Singh vs Sunrise Papers
2011 Latest Caselaw 3704 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                   Judgment Delivered on : August 3rd 2011

+                   CRL.M.C. 995/2011

       RANA GURJEET SINGH                                ..... Petitioner
                                        Through: Mr.Abhinav Vashist,
                                        Sr. Adv with Mr.B.S. Shukla &
                                        Ms.Misha Rohatgi, Advs.
                versus
       SUNRISE PAPERS                             ..... Respondent
                                        Through: Ms.Mala Goel, Adv.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
        see the judgment?                               Yes.
     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?          Yes.
     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
        Digest?                                         Yes.

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Vide this petition under Section 482 Criminal

Procedure Code, petitioner has challenged the complaint case

under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881

(hereinafter referred to as the „NI Act‟) bearing No.PP-1929/03

titled as „M/s.Sunrise vs. M/s.Rana Mohendra Papers Ltd Ors‟

filed by the respondent against six respondents/ accused and

the petitioner was impleaded as respondent/accused No.4 in

the said complaint. Admittedly, the complaint case was filed in

the year 2003.

2. Mr.Abhinav Vashist, Learned Senior Advocate for

the petitioner submits that on 01.10.2002, petitioner has

resigned as director from the company. The petitioner has

filed the certified copy issued by the Registrar of Companies

under Form No.32, Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner has also

filed the copy of the resignation letter dated 01.10.2002 to be

accepted with immediate effect and was submitted before the

Registrar of Companies on the same date.

3. Learned Senior Advocate, further submits that in

the complaint there is no allegation against the petitioner,

therefore, the trial court has wrongly summoned and the

proceedings are pending before the trial Court against the

petitioner.

4. Further submits that, as the petitioner has resigned

on 01.10.2002 and the cheque in question was issued,

thereafter on 18.11.2002, and the complaint case under NI

Act was filed way back in the year 2003.

5. Ms.Mala Goel, learned counsel for respondent

submits that the petitioner is the relative of other co-accused,

therefore, he must come with clean hands to the Court and

should come forward to disclose the address of the rest of the

respondents/accused in the complaint case.

6. Further submits that, till date notice of the

complaint case could not be served due to non-availability of

addresses of the other respondents/accused and they are

intentionally avoiding the service and till date they have not

joined the proceedings in the said complaint case.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon

the judgment of this Court in the case of Ishan Systems Pvt Ltd

& Ors Vs. Vijay Bank : 177 (2011) DLT 589, wherein

proceedings under Section 138 NI Act were refused to be

quashed against the applicant and it was observed that the

defence taken by the petitioner is to be taken before the

learned Trial Judge, therefore, in the aforesaid judgment, the

petition of the petitioner was dismissed.

8. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has

relied upon the case Harshendra Kumar D Vs. Rebatilata Koley

& Ors : (2011) 3 SCC 351 wherein the Supreme Court has dealt

with the same issue as under:-

"27. As noticed above, the appellant resigned from the post of Director on 02.03.2004. The dishonoured cheques were issued by the company on 30.04.2004, i.e. much after the appellant had resigned from the post of Director of the company. The acceptance of the appellant‟s resignation is duly reflected in the Resolution dated 02.03.2004. Then in the prescribed form (Form 32), the company informed to the Registrar of Companies on 04.03.2004 about the appellant‟s resignation. It is not even the case of the complainants that the dishonoured cheques were issued by the appellant. These facts leave no manner of doubt that on the date of the offence was committed by the company, the appellant was not the Director; he had nothing to do with the affairs of the company. In this view of the matter, if the criminal complaints are allowed to proceed against the appellant, it would result in gross injustice to the

appellant and tantamount to an abuse of process of the Court."

9. As per the aforesaid judgment, in that case also the

appellant was not the director and he had nothing to do with

the affairs of the company and the Supreme Court find that it

would be gross injustice to the appellant and tantamount to

abuse of process of the Court. Thus, the complaint against the

appellant was quashed.

10. I made it clear that in the case of Ishan Systems

(supra) the admitted case of the petitioner was that the

petitioner had taken the loan from the respondent bank and

the cheques in question issued by the petitioner were

presented by the respondent and dishonoured, but since the

respondent bank had invoked the provisions of Securitisation

Act, complaint case u/s 138 NI Act would not be maintainable.

11. However, in the instant case, the petitioner neither

has issued the cheque, nor was the director as on the date of

the issuance of the cheque, therefore, this case Ishan Systems

(supra) relied upon by learned counsel for respondent, is not

applicable to the present case in the facts and circumstance.

12. In the instant case, the petitioner is no more

director at the time of issuance of the cheque, therefore, he

could not be held liable for the misdeeds committed by the

company and its directors.

13. Keeping the aforesaid discussion into view, the

complaint case under Section 138 NI Act bearing CC No.PP-

1929/03 titled as 'M/s.Sunrise vs. M/s.Rana Mohendra Papers

Ltd Ors' is quashed qua the petitioner, who is respondent/

accused No.4 in the said complaint filed by the respondent

herein.

14. Before parting this order, learned counsel for

respondent submits that under Section 482 Cr. P. C. High Court

has wide powers even to compel any person to disclose the

antecedents of someone. Further she submits that, though the

complaint is quashed against the petitioner, but rest of the

respondents who have still not joined the proceedings of

complaint case before Trial Court are the related to each other

and petitioner herein can be asked to furnish the addresses of

the remaining respondents/accused persons.

15. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits

that due to misunderstanding respondent/accused persons

departed with each other in different companies and his client

is not on talking terms at all and does not have any addresses

of the other accused persons.

16. Under these circumstances, Court has no other

option, but to turn down the request of learned counsel for

respondent.

17. Criminal M.C. No.995/2011 stands allowed.

Crl.M.A.No.3724/2011 (stay)

18. In view of above, this application becomes

infructuous and stands disposed of accordingly.

SURESH KAIT, J August 03rd 2011 Mk