Jharkhand High Court
Jai Vikrant @ Jay Vikrant vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 May, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2025:JHHC:13451)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 751 of 2024
Jai Vikrant @ Jay Vikrant, aged about 49 years, s/o Janardan Prasad,
r/o New Patliputra Colony, Boring Road Patna, P.O. & P.S.-Patna,
Dist.-Patna, Bihar
.... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Insa Developers through its Partner Joydeb Chatterjee, s/o not
known to the petitioner, having office at Round House, North
Office Para, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, Dist.-Ranchi
.... Opp. Parties
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bhola N. Ojha, Spl. P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : None
.....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. Though notice issued to the opposite party no.2 has been validly
served yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in-
spite of repeated calls.
3. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to
quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking
cognizance dated 20.10.2023 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi, whereby and where under, cognizance
under Section 138 of N.I. Act has been taken inter alia against the
( 2025:JHHC:13451)
petitioner and summons were directed to be issued against him in
connection with Complaint Case No. 11944 of 2023 instituted under
Section 138 of N.I. Act.
4. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner was the director of
Shree Gopi Ispat Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Shree Gopi Ispat Pvt. Ltd. issued a
cheque signed by co-accused- Subir Kumar Sahu of Rs.75,00,000/- in
discharge of part of the legal liability of the said Shree Gopi Ispat
Pvt. Ltd. to the complainant. The complainant presented the cheque,
the same was dishonoured. The complainant issued legal notice to
the petitioner and co-accused persons of demanding the payment of
the cheque amount. The same was not paid. The complainant filed
Complaint Case No. 11944 of 2023 in the court of Judicial Magistrate
1st Class, Ranchi and the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi
after considering the facts of the case found sufficient materials to
constitute the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and
ordered for issuance of summons inter alia against the petitioner.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing
attention of this Court to page no. 22 of the brief which is a copy of
the photocopy of the said cheque leaf and submits that the same was
signed only by the co-accused-Subir Kumar Sahu but not the
petitioner. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that there is no material in the record to suggest that the
petitioner was actively involved in financial decision making of
Shree Gopi Ispat Pvt. Ltd. It is further submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that as mentioned in paragraph no.12 of
the petition that the petitioner ceased to be the director of the
company since 2017 itself and in this respect, learned counsel for the
( 2025:JHHC:13451)
petitioner draws the attention of this Court to Form No. DIR- 11
which goes to show that the petitioner has resigned from the office of
the director of Shree Gopi Ispat Pvt. Ltd. from 29.05.2017. Relying
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Kamalkishor Shrigopal Taparia vs. India Ener-Gen Private
Limited & Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 223, paragraph no. 16 of
which reads as under:-
"16. Upon perusal of the record and submissions of the
parties, it is evident that the Appellant was neither a
signatory to the dishonoured cheques nor was he actively
involved in the financial decision-making of the company.
Moreover, he resigned from the post of independent non-
executive director on 03.05.2017, duly notified through Form
DIR-11 and DIR-12 to the Registrar of Companies."
6. It is submitted that in that case, it has been observed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India that if an accused person in a case involving
the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act is neither
signatory to the dishonoured cheque nor he was actively involved in
the financial decision-making company having resigned from the
director of the company, such criminal proceeding should be
quashed against such person. Hence, it submitted that the prayer as
made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.
7. Learned Special Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposes the
prayer and submits that at this nascent stage, the criminal
prosecution of the petitioner ought not be quashed and submits that
this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be
dismissed.
8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going
through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here
that the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner is not the
( 2025:JHHC:13451)
signatory to the cheque issued by M/s. Shree Gopi Ispat Pvt. Ltd. to
the complainant on 15.04.2023. The copy of Annexure-4 goes to show
that in fact the petitioner was not having any relationship with Shree
Gopi Ispat Pvt. Ltd. after his resignation from the office of director of
the company with effect from 29.05.2017 much prior to issuance of
such cheque. The Form No. DIG 11 goes to show that the petitioner
was neither the director of the company either at the time of issue of
the cheque or any time of filing of the complaint.
9. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that
the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner
will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the
entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance
dated 20.10.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Ranchi, in connection with Complaint Case No. 11944 of 2023 be
quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only.
10. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order
taking cognizance dated 20.10.2023 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi, in connection with Complaint Case No.
11944 of 2023 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only.
11. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 5th May, 2025
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
