Ankit Kumar Choudhary vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 3579 Jhar

                                                   1                 Cr.M.P. No. 1539 of 2014


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                            Cr.M.P. No. 1539 of 2014
                 Ankit Kumar Choudhary                      ... Petitioner
                                          -Versus-
            1.   The State of Jharkhand
            2.   Sri Subodh Rai, Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Area,
                 Jhumri Telaiya, District- Koderma         ... Opposite Parties
                                           -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

-----

            For the Petitioner       : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
                                       Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Pathak, Advocate
                                       Mr. Shashi Kant Mishra, Advocate
            For the State            : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, S.P.P.
            For O.P. No.2            : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate
                                           -----

09/20.09.2023     Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal

proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No.119/2019 including the

order taking cognizance dated 03.07.2009, pending in the court of the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma.

3. Mr. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that the petitioner happened to be Director of M/s Tirupati Ingots

Private Limited. He further submits that he has already resigned on

30.12.2008 and the complaint case was filed on 18.02.2009 arising out of

dishonour of cheque. He also submits that prior to that two cases have

already been lodged, which are for same transaction. He submits that in

view of that, Section 300 Cr.P.C. is attracted. He further submits that the

learned court has taken cognizance against the petitioner under Section 420

and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instrument Act, which is bad in law. He submits that the allegation was

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and unnecessarily

Section 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code was added. To buttress his

argument, he relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of J. Vedhasingh v. R.M. Govindan and others ,

reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1010. He further submits that the

company is not made accused and in view of the judgment passed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels

and Tours Private Limited, reported in (2012) 5 SCC 661, the case of

the petitioner is fit to be allowed.

4. The argument of Mr. Kashyap is being resisted by Mr. Nilesh Kumar,

learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and he submits that transaction in

other cases are different and the allegations are not similar. He further

submits that the occurrence was prior to the period of resignation of the

petitioner. He submits that there is no illegality in the order and the learned

court has rightly taken cognizance. He also submits that the HT agreement

was entered by the petitioner in the year 2004 and the cheque has been

issued by the petitioner.

5. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the

parties, the court has perused the order dated 03.07.2009 and finds that by

the said order, the learned court has taken cognizance against the petitioner

and also issued summon against the petitioner. The cognizance has been

taken under Section 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138

of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Once the case is arising out of Section

138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the question remains how the case

under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. Further

by the said order, a composite order has been passed. If summoning order

is being passed in a common order, at least reason is required to be

disclosed in the said order, which is lacking in the case in hand.

6. Accordingly, the order dated 03.07.2009 passed in connection with

Complaint Case No.119/2009, pending in the court of the learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Koderma is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the

learned court to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law.

7. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.

8. Interim order, if any granted by this court, stands vacated.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/