RANCHI, India, Nov. 4 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Oct. 6:
1. Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings and prosecution as well as the order dated 21.12.2015 passed in C.P. Case No.2797 of 2015 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner despite there being a delay in filing the complaint, involving the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881, without giving any notice to the petitioner and without recording any express satisfaction in the impugned order taking cognizance dated 21.12.2015, about condoning of the delay in filing the complaint.
3. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner as an additional ground, that the petitioner is no more the Director of the Company, for the dishonour of the cheque issued by which company, this complaint has been filed and he was never the Managing Director and Chairman of the said Company; but keeping in view the description of the petitioner in the complaint that he is Managing Director and Chairman of the said company and in view of the principle of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pawan Kumar Goel vs. State of U.P. & Another reported in 2023 (2) East Cr. C 55 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated that merely being a Director of a company is not sufficient to make the person liable under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and to make out a Director liable for prosecution, there has to be specific averments that a Director was In-charge of and responsible to the company for conduct of its business, but in case of Managing Director and Joint Managing Director they being admittedly In-charge of the company and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business, no such specific averments is required.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the said ground and confines to the only ground that the petitioner has neither been issued any notice nor has he been given any opportunity of being heard, even though the complaint was filed after a delay and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has not passed any express order condoning the delay in filing the said complaint. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed.
5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition but fairly submit that notice was not issued to the petitioner, who was the accused person of the case before condoning of the delay.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=eISc8sUCYnQFBVP%2BVeJCOLd%2B%2FB1d%2Bx2ZvnQVw1ddNT9NNMLoDHODy%2Fq4QlnxWgCo&caseno=Cr.M.P./2517/2017&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010097172017&state_code=7&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
