Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nilesh Shah vs Jyoti Rani And Others on 22 November, 2013
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
CRM-M-31175-2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-31175-2011
Date of decision: 22.11.2013
Nilesh Shah
...Petitioner
Versus
Jyoti Rani and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr.Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.CK Jha, Advocate for respondent No.1.
****
Jitendra Chauhan, J.
The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the complaint CR No.2491/2 dated 4.11.2010 and RBT No.756/2 dated 15.12.2010, titled as "Jyoti Rani vs. M/s Vee India Retail Pvt. Ltd. and others", under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana and summoning order dated 1.11.2010.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was neither the Director nor incharge of the day to day affairs of the company-respondent No.2 and on the relevant date, the petitioner is not the signatory of the cheque. He refers to Form 32, and states that the petitioner had resigned from the respondent-company and he also sent his resignation to the Registrar of Companies. He cites Shanker Gauri 2013.11.26 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM-M-31175-2011 2 Venkatesh Waran and another vs. Singravel Yarn Traders 2010(4) RCR (Crl.) 426, Anita Malhotra vs. Apparel Export Promotion Council (2012) 1 SCC 520; Saroj Kumar Poddar vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. 2007(1) RCR (Crl.) 741 and Sri Chhedi lal Gupta vs. Shri Suresh Damani and others 2010 (6) RCR (Crl.) 1232 Heard.
The learned JMIC while summoning the petitioner has categorically recorded that there is prima facie sufficient material to issue process against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The statement of complainant Jyoti Rai has been recorded and she has tendered her affidavit alongwith the requisite documents including cheque, memo, legal notice, postal receipt etc. The petitioner was Director of the company on the relevant date or not, this being a disputed question of fact, the Court is not inclined to go into the matter at this stage.
Dismissed.
22.11.2013 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN)
gsv JUDGE
Shanker Gauri
2013.11.26 11:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh