Roopvinder Singh Sethi vs Tan Print (India) Pvt Ltd & Anr
2011 Latest Caselaw 6008 Del

$~19 & 20
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+           CRL.M.Cs. No. 3247/2011 & 3250/2011

%                           Judgment delivered on: 8th December, 2011

+     CRL.M.C. 3247/2011 & Crl. M.A. No.11540/2011

      ROOPVINDER SINGH SETHI                  ..... Petitioner
                   Through : Mr. Mike Desai, Adv.

                   versus

      TAN PRINT (INDIA) PVT LTD & ANR            ..... Respondents
                     Through : Mr. M.P. Sinha , Adv.
AND

+     CRL.M.C. 3250/2011 & Crl. M.A. No.11549/2011


      ROOPVINDER SINGH SETHI                  ..... Petitioner
                   Through : Mr. Mike Desai, Adv.

                   versus

      TAN PRINTS (INDIA) PVT LTD & ANR ..... Respondents
                    Through : Mr. M.P. Sinha , Adv.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Vide the instant petitions, the petitioner has challenged the very fact of the complaint and emanating proceedings thereto. In consequence of the complaint, summoning order dated 04.07.2011 has

been passed against the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had resigned from the Directorship long back in the year 2002 and the cheques in question were issued much after i.e. on 05.03.2006 and 5.4.2006, the details of which are as follows :-

(i) Cheque No. 755921 dated 05.02.2006 for a sum of Rs.75,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank.

(ii) Cheque No. 755922 dated 05.03.2006 for a sum of Rs.75,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank.

(iii) Cheque No. 755923 dated 05.04.2006 for a sum of Rs.55,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank.

3. To this effect, the petitioner has also annexed certified copy of Form No. 32, annexed at page 39 and 41 of the paper book.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the complainant has falsely implicated the petitioner in the complaint and the learned trial MM has issued summons against him.

5. I note, as per Form 32, which has been filed with the ROC on 02.05.2002, the petitioner resigned from the said company on 02.05.2002, whereas the cheques in question were issued in 2006, which is after his resignation.

6. Ld. counsel for the respondent No.1 Mr. M.P. Sinha submits that he does not dispute the relief sought by the petitioner as he has placed on record Form 32 which proves that he resigned way back in 2002 from the company whereas the cheques in question pertain to the year

2006.

7. Ld. counsel further clarified that the ld. Trial Judge has not even issued notice against the petitioner as is evident from the order dated 01.04.2011.

8. Thereafter, when nobody appeared for the company, notices were issued against all the respondents including the petitioner.

9. As fairly conceded by the ld. counsel for the respondent No.1, no further order is required to be passed.

10. In view of above, I quash the Complaint Cases No.826/2009 and 827/2009 qua the petitioner Mr. Roopvinder Singh Sethi.

11. Crl. MC Nos.3247/2011 and 3250/2011 disposed of accordingly.

12. Consequently, Crl. M.A. No.11540/2011 and Crl. M.A. No.11549/2011 stands disposed of.

13. I note, the complaint in question was filed way back in 2006. Till date even notices have not been served on the respondent company. I expect from the ld. Trial Judge to expedite the matter and decide expeditiously.

14. Dasti.

SURESH KAIT, J DECEMBER 08, 2011 RS