Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Brk Food Private Limited vs M/S Manoj Trading Company on 2 January, 2024
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 2 nd OF JANUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 57338 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
M/S BRK FOOD PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY
INCORPATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 1956 THROUGH
ITS DIRECTOR RAHUL KUMAWAT S/O LATE SHRI
BHERULAL KUMAWAT HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT 71, B AND C INDUSTRIAL AREA NO1 DEWAS
M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI ANUJ AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)
AND
M/S MANOJ TRADING COMPANY A PROPRIETORSHIP
FIRM THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI MANOJ JAIN
S/O KOMAL CHAND JAIN HAVING ITS REGISTERD
OFFICE AT NEMI NAGAR COLONY H.NO.4 P.S. CITY
KOTWALI DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashment
of impugned order dated 19/12/2023 in CSNIA Complaint No.25/18
and also for a direction to hold that the proceedings pending before the
Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Damoh are not maintainable.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the present
case, the applicant is being prosecuted under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 on the strength of a complaint moved
by the respondent/company. Learned counsel for the applicant contends
that a copy of the notice was sent to Director of applicant company Shri
Rahul Kumawat in the individual capacity which has been brought on
record as Annexure P/3. A perusal of the said notice reveal that the
same was sent to an individual and not to company and the same does
not satisfy the requirements as stipulated in Section 141 of Negotiable
Instrument Act, 1881.
3. It is contended by the counsel that the complaint has been
filed against the applicant's company and therefore, it is obligatory upon
the complainant to ensure compliance of provisions of Section 141 (1)
of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. It is contended by the counsel that
it was incumbent upon the complainant to specifically aver in the
complaint, the details regarding the person who according to
complainant was in-charge of and was responsible for the conduct of
the business of the company. It is contended by the counsel that the
averments in terms of Section 141 (1) of Negotiable Instrument Act,
1881 have not been made by the complainant and therefore, in view of
the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ashok
Shewakramani and Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr.
reported in (2023) 8 SCC 473 the complaint is not maintainable.
4. It is also contended by the counsel that an application was
made before the trial Court as well for dismissing the complaint but the
trial Court vide impugned order dated 19/12/2023 has dismissed the
application moved by the present applicant regarding maintainability of
the complaint. Learned counsel also placed reliance in the judgment of
Apex Court in the case of Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel Vs. Hitesh
Mahendrabhai Patel and Anr. in Criminal Appeal No.1497/2022
and judgment of this Court in the case of Avanindra Kumar Tripathi
Vs. Azad Kumar in M.Cr.C. No.8174/2017.
5. No other point is pressed or argued by the applicant.
6. Heard the submission advanced on behalf of the applicant.
7. As per contention so advanced by the applicant, the notice
was sent to Shri Rahul Kumawat and in paragraph 1 of the notice, it
was stated by the complainant that Shri Rahul Kumawat is working as
Director of the applicant/company. In subsequent complaint filed under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, the complainant
submitted in paragraph 2 as under:
"2 ;g fd vkjksih@ vukosnd Hkh ch-vkj-ds- QqMl izkbosV fyfeVsM
ds uke ls vius O;kikj dk lapkyu djrs gS ,oa mlds izks-ik-@funsZ'kd]
vkjksih@vukosnd Lo;a gSA vukosnd@ vkjksih vius O;olk; dk lapkyu
71& ch- ,oa lh- baMLV`h;y ,sfj;k ua- &1 nsokl (e-iz-) ls lapkfyr djrk
gSA"
8. A perusal of aforesaid paragraph, it was specifically asserted
by the complainant in the complaint that the respondent in the complaint
who is applicant herein was running its business and Shri Rahul
Kumawat is the Director/Proprietor of the company.
9. The said averment made in paragraph 2 of the complaint, in the
considered view of this Court are sufficient so as to ensure compliance
of Section 141 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The complainant
has categorically stated that respondent in the complaint running the
business in the name of BRK Foods Private Limited and Shri Rahul
Kumawat is its Director/Proprietor. Therefore, this Court is not
inclined to entertain the submission regarding maintainability of the
complaint. The complaint prima facie appears to be maintainable and
the reliance on the aforesaid decisions is misplaced.
9. Accordingly, this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
stands dismissed at his admission stage.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
Astha
