Delhi High Court
Amul Urhwareshe vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr. on 8 January, 2013
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 8th January, 2013
+ CRL. M.C. 1050/2012
AMUL URHWARESHE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vishal Gosain Adv. with
Mr. Harsh Bora, Adv.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State.
Mr. Ashok Anand Adv. with
Ms. Priya Pathania, Adv. for R-2.
CRL. M.C. 3071/2012
AMUL URHWARESHE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vishal Gosain Adv. with
Mr. Harsh Bora, Adv.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State.
Mr. Ashok Anand Adv. with
Ms. Priya Pathania, Adv. for R-2.
CRL. M.C. 3072/2012
AMUL URHWARESHE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vishal Gosain Adv. with
Mr. Harsh Bora, Adv.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State.
Mr. Ashok Anand Adv. with
Ms. Priya Pathania, Adv. for R-2.
Crl.MC 1050/2012 Etc. Page 1 of 4
CRL. M.C. 3073/2012
AMUL URHWARESHE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vishal Gosain Adv. with
Mr. Harsh Bora, Adv.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State.
Mr. Ashok Anand Adv. with
Ms. Priya Pathania, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. By virtue of these four Petitions, the Petitioner seeks quashing of the four
Complaints titled 'M/s. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency
Ltd. (IREDA) v. M/s. Enbee Infrastructure Ltd. Etc.' qua him on the
ground that the dishonoured cheques were dated 31.03.2005; and the
Petitioner resigned from the Directorship of M/s. Enbee Infrastructure
Ltd. on 31.08.2000 and information in this regard was sent to the
Registrar of Companies (ROC) on 10.09.2000, thus the Petitioner cannot
be said to be guilty of offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the N.I.Act).
2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner also relies on the order dated
24.01.2011 passed by A.K.Pathak, J. in Criminal M.C. No.1366/2010 and
dated 11.04.2012 passed by Pratibha Rani, J. in Criminal M.C.
No.1926.2011 where in similar circumstances the complaint against the
Petitioner was quashed.
3. The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 opposes the Petition on the
ground that a perusal of Form No.32, certified copy of which has been
placed on record shows that its effective date was only 06.04.2004. He
urges that the Petitioner's liability arose much before 06.04.2004 and
mere recording in Column No.6 of Form No.32 that the Petitioner
resigned as Director w.e.f. 31.08.2000 would not be sufficient to absolve
him of his liability under the N.I.Act. In support of this contention, the
learned counsel for Respondent No.2 places reliance on Atul Kohli &
Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2005) 127 Comp. Cas. 237 (P&H).
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has taken me through the certified
copy of Form No.32 and also the receipt through which the information
regarding resignation was communicated to the ROC. The demand draft
for `1,000/- for lodging an information regarding date of change in
appointment was prepared on 03.09.2000 and the information was lodged
on 10.09.2000. Therefore, the information regarding Petitioner's
resignation would be effective from 10.09.2000. It cannot be said that
this information was manipulated or was pre-dated as the same was
documented. Atul Kohli relied upon by the learned counsel for
Respondent No.2, therefore, does not apply to the facts of the present
case.
5. Since the Petitioner was not the Director of the Company on the date
when the offence was allegedly committed, he cannot be prosecuted by
taking aid of Section 141 of the N.I.Act. A reference in this connection
may be made to a judgment of this Court in M.L. Gupta v. DCM
Financial Services Limited 167 (2010) DLT 428. In similar
circumstances, the complaints were quashed by the Delhi High Court in
Criminal MC Nos.1317/2009, 1318/2009, 1319/2009, 1320/2009,
1321/2009 & 1322/2009.
6. I find no reason to take a different view. Thus, the Petitions preferred by
the Petitioner are allowed and Criminal Complaint Case Nos.2106/1 of
2003, 895/12 of 2005, 901/12 of 2004 and 897/12 of 2004 and the
proceedings arising there from as against the Petitioner are quashed.
7. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
JANUARY 08, 2013
vk
