Delhi High Court
Sanjay Thakral vs Rajeshwar Garg on 21 May, 2012
Author: M. L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl. M.C. No. 2295/2008
Date of Decision: 21.05.2012
SANJAY THAKRAL .... PETITIONER
Through: Mr. R.N. Mittal, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Puneet Mittal, Advocate
Versus
RAJESHWAR GARG ......RESPONDENT
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)
The petitioner seeks quashing of complaint U/s 138 N.I. Act and
summoning order dated 1st June, 2007.
A complaint U/s 138 N.I. Act was filed against M/s Fad Age India and
its partners Pankaj Babel and Manish Babel and the petitioner, namely, Sanjay
Thukral by the complainant. The allegations as stated in the complaint are that
a cheque of Rs.1,42,619/- was given by the company through its partners and
the petitioner which on presentation got dishonoured due to insufficiency of
funds. The allegations against the petitioner are that he was the Manager and
Incharge and responsible to the conduct and affairs of the company along with
the partners. It is alleged that he along with partners of the company who are
arrayed as accused Nos. 2 & 3 came to the office of the complainant and
handed over the aforesaid cheque.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that thee is no allegation
against the petitioner to make him vicariously liable along with partners of the
company U/s 138/141 N.I. Act. It is submitted that allegations as leveled
against him are vague in nature and do not come within the ambit of Section
138 & 141 N.I.Act.
Having heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, it would be
seen that the allegations against the petitioner are not vague and bald as is
sought to be presented by learned senior counsel. In para Nos. 5,6,8 & 12 there
are specific allegations regarding he being incharge and responsible to the
conduct and the affairs of the company along with partners. It is specifically
averred that it was the petitioner who accompanied the partners of the company
came to the office of the complainant and gave the cheque and further that it
was he who had approached the complainant firm from time to time for
purchase of yarn and for giving cheques. Though the financial responsibility
may be that of the company and its partners, but at this stage it cannot be said
that the petitioner was not incharge or responsible to the conduct and affairs of
the business of the company. U/s 141 (2) N.I. Act, the Manager along with the
other officials of the company was also deemed to be guilty of the offence that
was committed by the company. It was for the complainant to prove that the
petitioner being the Manager was vicariously liable along with the partners and
the company U/s 141 (2) N.I. Act. The case being at the stage of trial, the
complainant cannot be deprived of its right to prove the case against the
petitioner. At this stage, it cannot be said that there is no prima facie case
against the petitioner. Hence the petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed.
M.L. MEHTA, J
MAY 21, 2012
pkv
