Delhi High Court
Samridh Sharma vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 25 May, 2017
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 25th MAY, 2017
+ CRL.M.C. 2480/2016 & CRL.M.A.No.10659/2016
SAMRIDH SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Manish Pratap Singh, Advocate.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through : Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan, APP.
Mr.Anupam Srivastava, Advocate
with Ms.Sharmistha Ghosh, Advocate
for the Respondent No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (Oral)
1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section
482 Cr.P.C. to challenge the legality and correctness of orders dated
05.03.2016 and 13.12.2013 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate by the
application for dropping the proceedings under Section 138 N.I.Act was
dismissed.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
examined the file. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the
respondent No.2 is a sleeping director and has nothing to do with the
issuance of the cheques in question. The petitioner is not the Managing
Director as claimed in response to the notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. No
proceedings can be initiated under Section 138 N.I.Act against him.
3. Record reveals that in the Complaint Case No.762/2013
instituted under Section 138 N.I.Act, the petitioner among others was
summoned by an order dated 13.12.2013. Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C.
dated 13.01.2015 has been served upon the petitioner. It is informed that the
complainant has examined himself as CW-2 in the proceedings and at
present the matter is fixed for recording defence evidence.
4. In the complaint case, the complainant categorically averred
that the accused No.1 therein was a company and accused Nos.2 (the
petitioner) and 3 were its directors. It was further mentioned that the
respondent Nos.2 (the petitioner) and 3 were part of the senior management
of the company; they are and were in-charge of the day-to-day business and
management of the operational and financial affairs of the company at the
relevant time. It was further disclosed that the cheques issued by the
complainant were usually issued at their behest and with their full
knowledge. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 had signed various documents for
obtaining domestic factoring facility from the complainant. They had also
guaranteed repayment by the company of the amount involved with respect
to it the cheques in question. Form 20B evidencing that respondent Nos.2
and 3 were directors in the company was also placed on record. These
averments were enough to proceed against the petitioner for commission of
offence under Section 138 N.I.Act. The petitioner had put suggestion to the
complainant in the cross-examination that the petitioner had only signed the
factoring agreement and the personal guarantee and was not in-charge of
day-to-day affairs of the company. It can be inferred at this stage that the
petitioner was taking active part in the affairs of the company and for that
reason had put signatures on the factoring agreement and had furnished the
guarantee.
5. The pleas taken by the petitioner are primarily his defence
which is to be considered during trial. At this stage, when the case is fixed
for defence evidence, the Trial Court did not commit any fault by not
dropping the proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner must wait for
the final verdict of the Court. He will be at liberty to raise all these pleas at
the time of final disposal.
6. The petition lacks in merits and is dismissed.
7. Observations in the order shall have no impact on merits of the
case.
8. Pending application also stands disposed of.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
MAY 25, 2017 / tr
