Bhagayshree Digambar Mungre & ... vs Small Farmers Consortium & Anr
2019 Latest Caselaw 6232 Del

$~34
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                     Date of decision: 04.12.2019

+      CRL.M.C. 5005/2019
       BHAGAYSHREE DIGAMBAR MUNGRE & ANR.
                                                                     ..... Petitioners
                           Through           Mr.Vidhan Vyas, Adv. with
                                             Ms.Harshita Dhingra, Adv.

                           versus

       SMALL FARMERS CONSORTIUM & ANR.       ..... Respondents
                   Through Mr.Ravi Kumar, Adv. with Mr.Punit
                           Gaur, Adv. for R-1.


       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

                           J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. Vide the present petition, the petitioners pray as under:

(a) Quash the complaint case no. 18015/2018 under section 138

and 142 of the N.I. Act, 1881 with respect to the Petitioners

presently pending before the Hon'ble Metropolitan

Magistrate-3/South at the District Court of Saket, Delhi.

(b) Set-aside the impugned order dated 11.01.2019 in

Complaint Case No. 18015/2018 of the Hon'ble

Metroploitan Magistrate-3/South directing the summoning

ofthe Petitioners.

(c) Quash the proceedings pending against Petitioner no. 1 and

2 before the Hon'ble Metropolitan Magistrate-3/South in

Complaint Case No. 18015/2018.

(d) Release the PR Bond of Rs. 75,000/- each as submitted on

04.04.2019 and 19.07.2019 by the Petitioners before the

Hon'ble Metropolitan Magistrate-3/South at the District

Court of Saket, Delhi.

2. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner

no.1 was the director of the company M/s Omkar Nath Foods Processing

Pvt. Ltd. and issued cheque in question under her signatures. However,

though the petitioner no.2 was director in the aforesaid company, he

resigned on 01.02.2016, whereas, the cheque in question is dated

31.08.2018. Thus, only petitioner no.1 was responsible for the day to day

affairs of the company, as on that date. Accordingly, the complaint under

section 138 of the NI Act is not maintainable against petitioner no.2.

3. Counsel for the respondent submits that respondent no.2 was the

director on the date of MOU i.e. 18.07.2011, thus, he is also responsible for

the day to day affairs of the company and accordingly, in the complaint, the

allegations against respondent no.2 is that he was responsible for the day to

day affairs of the company, thus, respondent no.2 comes under the purview

of Section 138 of the NI Act.

4. It is not in dispute that respondent no.2 resigned from the company on

01.09.2016 and cheque in question was issued on 31.08.2018. The same is

evident from the resolution of the company dated 01.09.2016 that

resignation of petitioner no.1 was accepted on the said date. Thus, the role of

respondent no.2 does not come under the purview of section 138 of the NI

Act.

5. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed qua petitioner no.1, however,

allowed qua petitioner no.2.

6. Consequently, the proceedings before the Trial Court against

petitioner no.2 are hereby set aside.

7. In view of above directions, the petition stands disposed of.

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE DECEMBER 04, 2019 ab