Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2024) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 18948 = 2024(1) L.A.R. 191
Decided on: 09.01.2024
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv., Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv., Ms. Kamakshi Sehgal, Adv., Ms. Vidish Swarup, Adv., Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR
For Respondent(s):
Mr. Vipul Lamba, Adv., Mr. Ujjal Banerjee, AOR
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200 – Cheque bounce complaint – Quashing/ deletion of name of Director -- Complaint shows that the 2nd and the 5th accused had signed the cheque -- 2nd accused was one of the Directors and fifth accused was the authorized signatory of the company -- No allegation in the complaint that petitioner signed the cheque or had anything to do with the issuance of the cheque -- Petitioner is roped in only because she is a Director in the company on whose behalf, the cheque was issued -- Held, arraying of the petitioner as the 4th accused was un-justified -- Accordingly, her deletion from the proceedings ordered.
(Para 2-7)
ORDER
Heard Mr. Ankur Saigal, learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent is represented by Mr. Vipul Lamba, learned counsel.
2. The petitioner was arrayed as the 4th accused in the complaint i.e. C.C. No.729/2018 filed by the respondent under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A reading of the complaint Annexure P/1 shows that the 2nd and the 5th accused had signed the cheque. The 2nd accused was one of the Directors of M/s Spencer’s Travel Services Limited and the fifth accused was the authorized signatory of the company. There is no allegation in the complaint that she signed the cheque or had anything to do with the issuance of the cheque.
3. Notice in this case was issued on 22.04.2022 with the observation that the petitioner is arrayed as the 4th accused only because she is one of the Directors of the Company i.e. M/s Spencer’s Travel Services Limited. Accordingly, her personal presence was exempted before the trial Court.
4. The Learned counsel Mr. Vipul Lamba for the complainant submits that the trial Court has framed charges against the accused Nos.2 and 5 and the respondent is anxious for early disposal of the proceedings.
5. We have considered the absence of any role of the 4th accused, in issuing the concerned cheque which gives rise to the Complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner is roped in only because she is a Director in the company on whose behalf, the cheque was issued. The concerned Director who signed the cheque is already facing trial as accused in the proceedings.
6. Considering the above circumstances, we are of the view that arraying of the petitioner as the 4th accused in the C.C. No.729/2018, was un-justified. Accordingly, her deletion from the proceedings is ordered.
7. This order should not come in the way of continuation and conclusion of the proceeding in the C.C.No.729/2018 against the other accused. It is ordered accordingly.
8. With the above order the Special Leave Petition is disposed of. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
Order accordingly.
********