ORDER

DEEPAK KUMAR TIWARI, J. --

1. Heard.

2. This petition has been filed challenging the continuation of the criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short “the Act, 1881”) against the petitioner showing him as a Proprietor of the Company, without impleading the Company, in Case No.1973/2017, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg.

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in Aneeta Hada V. Godfather Travels & Tours Private Limited, (2012) 5 SCC 661, the principle in this regard has been well settled by the three Judge Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court and the same has been reiterated in the matter of Himanshu Vs. B. Shivamurthy and another, (2019) 3 SCC 797, in which, it has been held that without impleading a Company as a party for an offence under Section 138 of the Act, 1881, a complaint against the Director of the Company is not maintainable. Hence, learned counsel seeks a direction to the concerned Court to decide his objection within a stipulated period.

4. In Himanshu (supra), the law relating to Offence by companies has been clarified. There relevant paras 12 & 13 reads thus :

“12. The provisions of Section 141 postulate that if the person committing an offence under Section 138 is a company, every person, who at the time when the offence was committed was in charge of or was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished.

13. In the absence of the company being arraigned as an accused, a complaint against the appellant was therefore not maintainable. The appellant had signed the cheque as a Director of the company and for and on its behalf. Moreover, in the absence of a notice of demand being served on the company and without compliance with the proviso to Section 138, the High Court was in error in holding that the company could now be arraigned as an accused.”

5. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner as also considering the aforesaid proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the trial Court is directed to consider the objection of the petitioner within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of.

Order accordingly.

********