Rajpal Walia vs Rajeev Mehrotra
2023 Latest Caselaw 1708 Gua

                                                                        Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010089502023




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
     (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : Crl.Pet./391/2023

            RAJPAL WALIA
            S/O LATE CHUTTAN LAL WALIA
            R/O 48B, RACE COURSE, DEHRADUN, UTTARKHAND, PIN-248001.



            VERSUS

            RAJEEV MEHROTRA
            S/O SRI KARTAR SINGH MEHROTRA
             BORENGAJULI TEA ESTATE,
            P.O. DIMAKUCHI, DIST. UDALGURI,
            ASSAM, PIN-784526



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR S BORTHAKUR

Advocate for the Respondent :




                                    BEFORE
                     HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

                                          ORDER

02-05-2023

Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. This revision petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the issuance of Page No.# 2/3

summons by the Court of CJM, Kamrup (M) Guwahati in connection with the CR

case no.1211c of 2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter pertains to Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act), 1881. The informant was issued cheques by the company Puspanjali Realms and Infratech Limited, which were returned by the Bank for insufficiency of funds. Pursuant thereto the respondents being aggrieved, approached the Court of CJM, Kamrup (M), Guwahati as complainant. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the Director in the said company but the cheques were never issued by him nor he is entrusted with the day to day activities pertaining to the company. As such, taking cognizance in respect of the allegation made in respect of the petitioner is contrary to the provisions of NI Act as well as the law laid down by the Apex Court.

3. Mr. Borthakur relying on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Sunita Palita & Ors. vs. Panchami Stone Quarry , reported in (2022) 10 SCC 152 and submits that the Apex Court has held that unless the Director is shown to be a responsible for the day to day activities conducting of the business of the company at the relevant time or is signatory to the cheques, proceedings under 138 NI Act is not maintainable.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The pleadings available on records are perused. The contents of the complaint petition being CR case

no.1211c of 2020 enclosed to the revision petition has also been perused.

5. On being perusal of the materials available in the case record along with the judgment of the Apex Court referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the matter would require examination.

6. Accordingly, let notice be issued to the respondent, returnable by 4 (four) Page No.# 3/3

weeks.

Steps by registered post with A/D as well as by way of Dasti.

7. Till the next date fixed, the proceedings in connected CR case no.1211 c of

2020 pending before the Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class-cum- Munsiff No.3, Kamrup(M), in so far as the petitioner is concerned shall remained stayed.

8. List the matter on 07.06.2023.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant