Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Jaishree Mishra W/O Shri Subhash Mishra vs State Of Rajasthan on 24 February, 2020
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4397/2019
Jaishree Mishra W/o Shri Subhash Mishra, Director, M/s Niroj
Insulations Private Limited, Office Shop No. 4 And 5 House No.
801, Shastri Nagar, Dada Bari, Post Office Kota (Raj.) Pin-
324009
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, (Raj.)
2. Firm Jai Balaji Construction Company (J.b.c.c.), Office
Sangwan Farm House, Sehi Road Chirawa Dist. Jhunjhunu
Through Sh. Vinod Sangwan Single Owner Firm Jai Balaji
Construction Company (J.b.c.c.)
3. Niroj Insulation Private Limited, Office Shop No. 4 And 5,
House No.801, Shastri Nagar, Dadabari, Post Office Kota
Pin Code No. 324009 (Raj.) Through Its Managing
Director, Subhash Chandra Mishra
4. Subhash Chandra Mishra S/o Shri Brijlal Mishra, Managing
Director, Niroj Insulation Private Limited, Office Shop No.
4 And 5 House No.801, Shastri Nagar, Dadabari, Kota,
Post Office Kota (Raj.) Pin-324009
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravi Shanker Sharma, Mr. Dinesh Mishra, Mr. Pawan Sharma.
For State : Mr. Arvind Bhadu, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Order
24/02/2020
1. Accused-petitioner has preferred this misc. petition
aggrieved by Order dated 13.03.2019 vide which the cognizance has been taken against him.
2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is not responsible for the day to day management of the Company. She was not a signatory to the partnership deed. (Downloaded on 26/02/2020 at 09:12:06 PM)
(2 of 2) [CRLMP-4397/2019]
3. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on "S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Neeta Bhalla & Anr. (2005) 8 SCC 89, Murugan Navamani vs. Ramavat Construction Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (2) Cri. L.R. 1049, Mohd. Javed vs. State of Raj. & Anr. 2006 (7) R.C.R. (Criminal) 447, Naveen vs. State of Raj. & Anr. 2010 (21) R.C.R. (Criminal) 607" and "Central Bank of India vs. Asian Global Ltd. AIR 2007 SC 1454".
4. I have considered the contentions and have perused the complaint.
5. Apex Court in Central Bank of India vs. Asian Global Ltd. (Supra) held that complaint against director is not maintainable in absence of specific allegation that said director was in charge of affairs of Company and responsible for its action.
6. At the stage of taking of cognizance only complaint is to be looked into. The defence of the petitioner is not be seen at that stage. In the complaint, it is specifically mentioned that petitioner is a director and that that cheques were issued after her permission. It is also mentioned in the complaint that petitioner is managing the affairs of the Company.
7. The Judgments cited by counsel for the petitioner do not have applicability as there is specific pleading to the effect that petitioner is responsible for day to day management of the affairs of the Company.
8. Misc. petition seeking quashing of order of cognizance has no basis and the same is accordingly dismissed. Stay application stands disposed.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J CHANDAN /58 (Downloaded on 26/02/2020 at 09:12:06 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)