Deepak Jain & Anr vs Iris Computers Ltd on 17 October, 2023

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Deepak Jain & Anr vs Iris Computers Ltd on 17 October, 2023

$~54
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 7592/2023
DEEPAK JAIN & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Chinmoy Pradeep Sharma, Sr.
Advocate with Mr. Swetab Kumar,
Mr. Aakash Kakade and Mr. Rishabh
Munjal, Advocates

versus

IRIS COMPUTERS LTD ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. A.B. Pandey and Mr. Dinesh
Monga, Advocates

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
ORDER

% 17.10.2023 [The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode] CRL.M.A. 28246/2023

1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 7592/2023 & CRL.M.A. 28245/2023 (Stay)

3. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 seeking quashing of summoning order dated 03.06.2023 and notice dated 25.07.2023 passed by learned MM (NI Act), District New Delhi, Digital Court 01, Patiala House Court Complex in complaint filed under Section 138 read with Section 141 of NI Act, 1881, bearing CC NI Act No. 5557/2023 titled IRIS Computers Ltd vs. Suumaya CRL.M.C. 7592/2023 Page 1 of 4 This is a digitally signed order.

4. Mr. Chinmoy Pradeep Sharma, learned senior counsel submits that the petitioners are non-executive professional Directors and have no control or are responsible to run the day to day affairs of the respondent company. As such, no such complaint can be maintainable against them.

5. Learned senior counsel, by drawing attention of this Court to DIR-12 Form of the petitioners, placed on record from page 102 onwards, as Annexure P-3 (Colly), submits that such information qua the petitioners is available on the net in the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) and is available to everybody to cross check as to what is the status of a person in respect of whom a complaint can be maintained.

6. Learned senior counsel submits that it is clear from DIR-12 Form that none of the four petitioners before this Court were Managing Directors or Directors of such nature, who were in control of the affairs of the company. In fact, learned senior counsel submits that they are not even alleged to be signatories of the cheque, which are stated to have been dishonoured.

7. Learned senior counsel, on that proposition, relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunita Palita and Others vs. Panchami Stone Quarry reported as (2022) 10 SCC 152, which dealt with the proposition as to the status of the Non-Executive Director qua the company.

8. In fact according to the Supreme Court, Section 141 of NI Act, 1881, is a penal provision, creating vicarious liability and the persons, CRL.M.C. 7592/2023 Page 2 of 4 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/10/2023 at 23:47:26 who are arraigned as accused in the complaint under Section 138 NI Act, 1881 have to be imputed with specific allegations or accusations, in order to array them as a party in the complaint, and as such the four petitioners need not be arrayed as an accused person in the said compliant and the summoning order falls short of the legal requirement and ought to be quashed.

9. Mr. A.B. Pandey, learned counsel appears for the respondent on advance notice and invites attention of this Court to pages 69 and 70 of the present petition, to submit that according to the MCA Website, all the petitioners before this Court are Non-Executive Professional Directors, whose details are given on page 70. Learned counsel submits that it is on this basis the respondent had arraigned the petitioners as accused persons in the said complaint.

10. Learned counsel submits that on the aforesaid basis, the petitioners ought to appear before the learned Trial Court and face the trial after notices under Section 251 Cr.P.C, 1973 are framed against them.

11. In any case, according to learned counsel, there is an averment made against the petitioners in the compliant, particularly in para 2, as to their liabilities qua the present respondent.

12. Mr Sharma, learned senior counsel disputes the submissions of learned counsel for the respondent.

13. Issue notice.

14. Notice accepted by Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent, who seeks and is granted four weeks' time to file reply, with an advance copy to learned counsel for the petitioners.

CRL.M.C. 7592/2023 Page 3 of 4

This is a digitally signed order.

15. List on 29.01.2024.

16. In the meantime, learned Trial Court shall not frame charges under Section 251 Cr.P.C., 1973 only till next date of hearing.

17. Dasti.

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J OCTOBER 17, 2023 ms CRL.M.C. 7592/2023 Page 4 of 4 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/10/2023 at 23:47:26

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders