Uttarakhand High Court

Vento Pharmaceuticals vs Ravindra Singh" And on 7 July, 2025

                                                                        2025:UHC:5843
              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions                  COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
             and Registrar's
               order with
               Signatures
                               C-528 No. 486 of 2025
                               Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the Applicant.

2. Mr. Bilal Ahmed along with Mr. A. K. Beniwal, learned counsel for the Respondent.

3. In the present Application filed under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Applicant wishes to quash the summoning order dated 09.06.2022 passed by the court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Hariwar in Complaint Case No.777 of 2022, titled as "M/s Vento Pharmaceuticals vs. Ravindra Singh" and further to quash the Complaint Case No.777 of 2022, titled as "M/s Vento Pharmaceuticals vs. Ravindra Singh", pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate II, Roorkee, District Hariwar as the same is not maintainable against the Applicant.

4. Learned counsel for the Applicant makes a statement that firstly the notice sent to the Applicant was unsigned, hence the same is not in compliance of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("The Act, 1881" for short). Further the notice was not sent to the drawer of the cheque i.e. to M/s Brain Power 2025:UHC:5843 H.R. Management Pvt. Ltd. Secondly, in the complaint the company which is the drawer of the cheque and holder of the account has not been made a party and thirdly, the cheque in issue has not been issued towards repayment of a legally enforceable debt and the same was given as security.

5. He further relies upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd.", (2012) 5 SCC 661, whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has unequivocally held that a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is not maintainable against a Director or an individual, if the company that issued the cheque is not made a party to the proceedings.

6. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the court below by way of the impugned order took cognizance on the complaint filed by the Respondent and summoned the Applicant to face trial under Section 138 of the Act, 1881.

7. The sole argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Applicant is that in this case there is non-compliance of provision of Section 141 of the Act, 1881. It was further argued that in view of Section 141 of the Act, 1881, once the instrument has been issued by the company or the firm, the same is required to be impleaded 2025:UHC:5843 necessarily which was not done by the Respondent herein in the complaint proceedings before the court below.

8. Learned counsel for the Respondent admits this fact that there was violation of Section 141 of the Act, 1881 in the present case.

9. In such view of the matter, the present C- 528 Application is allowed. Accordingly, the summoning order dated 09.06.2022 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.777 of 2022, titled as "M/s Vento Pharmaceuticals vs. Ravindra Singh", are hereby quashed.

10. However, it is observed that quashing of present proceedings would not be construed as an impediment for the Respondent to prefer fresh proceedings before the Competent Court of law, if permissible in law, after compliance of the provisions of Section 141 of the Act, 1881.

(Ashish Naithani, J.) 07.07.2025 Akash