Karnataka High Court
Mrs.Jayalaxmi W/O Parashuramegouda vs Bharatesh Devendrappa Kittur on 26 July, 2010
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
Bench: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
., Qokak', DistI<i§:t Be1gé'u"rII
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-IARWAD '
DATED THIS THE 2631 DAY or JIILY'V._?,.("i 'I
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ;riULUvA--pI .; 'RA
CRIMINAL PETITION N<5;'.7£s3x6/2dt;9 '~.D «. "
BETWEEN: V 4' V V V
Mrs. Jayalaxmi Parashuramegoucia V
W/0. Parashuramegouda '_ . . V" "
Age: 44 years, Occ: Household _
No.240/1, Maniyappa Building E
Jakkasandra, 1SF.Blz__)ck 3' _
Kormangala, _
_ ...PE'I'I'I'IONER
{By Sri. Sriniaunc'-;;A_; Pabhhzapurg'; vAdv'.I) V'
AND:
Bharatesh VVD4'{'3\'/"(:"'I1(3V1VVI' aDpE "
Age: 3V2_years'; Qcc:.BuS'ine'Ss
R/0,,.1§3asavanagar,V Laxrni Extension area
RESPONDENT
Mantagani, Adv.)
",_ 'FHI_S :C}I€L.P IS FILED U/(3.482 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATEEQR THE PEZTITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH
Is's1jING OF SUMMONS DATED 9.3.2009 AND ENTIRE
" igPI{U{}EEDINGS IN C.C.NO.225/2009 WITH RESPECT TO
--T"THISH'I>E'm'oNEI2/ACCUSED NO.3 ON THE FILE OF' THE
I PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) AND JMFC, GOKAK AND
THE PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS BAY,
THE COURT MADE) THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner/accused No.3 has sought for the proceedings pending before Principal Dn.) and J.IVi.F.C, Gokak in c.c.No._2.2.s/2009"ifise'1fe_f'as'_'t.hie_ "' petitioner is concerned and for suchlkothfer ~i'ielief_.
2. The respondent/comp:la--inant a:Vllillp'rivate I complaint against thew.petitio'ne1;I_:'and._ othier"~.accIused in P.C.No.100/2008 before'J;'}?.4[jl??:C, the offences punishable Secti§onll:i13:8 Act.' It is the case of the corn.plaina.ntli'tIfi'a:tlthe*;§e'titioner herein and other accused who are lithe" 'Sparkle Technology Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, ha\}e'~f_al«:en hand loan of Rs.7,65,000/-- from the :ico:n:pla_ina1it'viI'and the cheque dated 14.08.2007 issued by l'then'_1;fo'r «fepaynient came to be dishonoured on presentation forilin.su--E:ficie'lf1t funds. The accused has also failed to comply cuhiurith the legal notice issued by' the complainant. Based on I *.r_he-- complaint and considering all material evidence available record, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and W"
D) issued process against the petitioner and other accused.
Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is Court seeking for quashing of the issue of su.1ii.monsi.t:"an't7}---1i~ also the entire proceedings. _
3. Heard.
4. it is submitted by for the petitioner/ accused No.3i*--.th'at' the_had retired as a Director of the company.longV.bach._'aiid.:itl*ie_'itegistrar of the Companies i_Forin 11.07.2005 i.e., much priorito cheque. it is wgisneither responsible for the conductiiiiofuitiieibu.sine's.sioi:_:tiiie"company nor she is signatory to thecheque. Counsel for the petitioner has 'iii"'va1soii..rie1ir:-ti upon tihie"'deicision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Wahi vs. Shekhar Singh and Others re'pp_i-'ted_ ;':t'i..V1{:ioo7) 9 sec 431 to contend that as per i',_Section of the N. i. Act, if any offence is committed by a then every person who is a Director/ employee is i not liabie and liability lies only on such person(s) who at the W time of commission of offence were in charge and_.-were responsible to the company for conduct of the the company as Weii as the company and merely ' Director of the company would not n_ri.a.k,e such V Therefore, he submitted that the petitiioiier 'was Director nor in charge and the're'fo_re wia's not for the conduct of the business of Syibmitted that the complaint is oniy against all the Directors and the _petitione.r.'s_resignation.'directorship has been accepted"iionéhnackijbyi'ioVr1i'1':No.32. Hence, he sought for and issuance of summons to th'e.i'petitioner.'«~.,_ _
5. Peirvcontrai, the ieairned Counsei for the respondent submi_tted<that th'e..pvetitioner is one of the Directors and she 'also responsible for the conduct of the business of the resisted the petition.
6.» itfiis noticed that the petitioner was the Director of company. But as per the submission of the learned up'-.f(;oi;nS€1 for the petitioner, way back in the year 2005 itseif M the petitioner was retired from the Directorship of the company by submitting Form No.32 which ha's-i:'heer_1 accepted by the Registrar of the companies arid produced at Annexure~B. Apart frornsithat, the not signatory to the cheque. When'._the"p.e'titioner"'isiii:ot_a:;_' active Director and not signatory._to the ci1equeiiand._V_a1s_o as held by the Apex Court in slifpra, the issuance of summons;.,,,,_5§*1§' of 'proceedings against the accused is a"o'L1sie~:i..'Qfi'iprocess of iaw. Acceptance of./1*IQ:§%{P-fodtica{§_"--1gcfo're the Registrar of iwas retired from the directo:::?shipiiofVitT;1e_'cioifripiaiiif WW tack on 11.07.2005. In the_' icirciirnstiancies, the petition is aiiowed. The impjdggned. proceedingslagainst the petitioner and also the piss-.1;e ofiisiirnnions is quashed.
Sd/A -
FUDGE