Subhash Chandra Gupta vs Shell India & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 5212 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                     Date of decision: 16th October, 2014

+       CRL.M.C. 4197/2013

SUBHASH CHANDRA GUPTA                                  ..... Petitioner
                Through:               Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh,
                                       Advocate.

                          versus

SHELL INDIA & ORS.                                       .....Respondents
                          Through:     Mr. D. Hasija, Advocate for R-1.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.P.VAISH

VED PRAKASH VAISH, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of Complaint Case No.102/2012 filed under Sections 138 and 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. The contextual matrix of this case is that respondent No.1 herein/ complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of dishonour of cheque bearing No.368960 dated 04.09.2012 for Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven lakhs) drawn on State Bank of India, Manesar, Gurgaon, Haryana. On presentation the said cheque was dishonoured with the remarks insufficient funds. Despite service of statutory notice dated 15.10.2012, accused persons failed to make payment of amount of cheque. The petitioner was impleaded as accused No.5 in the original complaint.

3. Vide order dated 02.01.2013, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Courts, Delhi took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the offence is alleged to have been committed the petitioner was not in-charge and responsible for day-to-dayaffairs of the accused company. The petitioner resigned from the Board of Directors of the accused company on 28.12.2011 but the accused company did not inform the same to the Registrar of Companies.

5. Per contra learned counsel for respondent No.1 urges that the notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. has been framed on 12.02.2014. The respondent/ complainant has already been examined through authorised representative of the complainant. He further submits that the petitioner was a Director of the accused company and was responsible for the conduct of the business and day-to-day affairs of the company. He also points out that the name of the petitioner Subhash Chandra Gupta as Director of the Company is mentioned in the record of Registrar of Companies.

6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties.

7. In the complaint filed by respondent/ complainant it is mentioned that accused Nos.3 to 6 are the Directors of accused No.1 company and the in-charge and responsible for conduct of day-to-day affairs of the business of the company. The plea of the petitioner that he had already resigned from the accused company before the date of dishonour of

cheque and the date of acceptance of resignation by the Board of Directors are a matter of trial. This Court is of the opinion that the trial court will consider the pleas taken by the petitioner during the course of trial.

8. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order.

9. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

Crl. M.A. No.14993/2013 The application is dismissed as infructuous.

(VED PRAKASH VAISH) JUDGE OCTOBER 16, 2014 hs