Delhi District Court
Madho Prakash Somani vs Shahi Realtech Private Limited on 25 July, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. LOVLEEN, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE-03, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Crl. Rev. No. 382/2019
CNR No. DLSE01-004767-2019
Madho Prakash Somani
Address :- C-417, Chittranjan Park,
New Delhi-110019 ...Revisionist
versus
Shahi Realtech Private Limited
A Company having its
Registered Office at :
101/B, Hamilton Court, DLF IV
Gurgaon-12201. ...Respondent
________________________
Crl. Rev. No. 383/2019
CNR No. DLSE01-004793-2019
Madho Prakash Somani
Address :- C-417, Chittranjan Park,
New Delhi-110019. ...Revisionist
versus
Shahi Realtech Private Limited
A Company having its
Registered Office at :
101/B, Hamilton Court, DLF IV,
Gurgaon-12201. ...Respondent
________________________
Crl. Rev. No. 398/2019
CNR No. DLSE01-004969-2019
Madho Prakash Somani
Address :- C-417, Chittranjan Park,
New Delhi-110019. ...Revisionist
versus
Shahi Realtech Private Limited
A Company having its
Registered Office at :
Crl. Rev. No. 382/19, 383/19, 398/19 & 117/2020 Madho Prakash vs. Shahi Realtech Pvt. Ltd. 1/14
101/B, Hamilton Court, DLF IV
Gurgaon-12201. ...Respondent
_____________________
Crl. Rev. No. 117/2020
CNR No. DLSE01-001769-2020
Madho Prakash Somani
Address :- C-417, Chittranjan Park,
New Delhi-110019. ...Revisionist
versus
Shahi Realtech Pvt. Ltd.
A Company having its
Registered Office at :
101/B, Hamilton Court, DLF IV
Gurgaon-12201. ...Respondent
____________________
Date of institution of Crl. Rev. No. 382/2019 : 05.07.2019
Date of institution of Crl. Rev. No. 383/2019 : 05.07.2019
Date of institution of Crl. Rev. No. 398/2019 : 10.07.2019
Date of institution of Crl .Rev. No. 117/2020 : 06.03.2020
Date of reserving the order : 03.07.2023
Date of pronouncement : 25.07.2023
JUDGMENT
1. These are four connected revision petitions filed against orders for summoning of the revisionist as an accused, passed by the Court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate in four complaints made by respondent herein under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. All these petitions shall be decided vide this common judgment.
2. As per revisionist, the respondent herein made averments in the said 04 complaints to the effect that the revisionist was in charge of and was in control of Celebration City Projects Private Limited (CCPL) along Crl. Rev. No. 382/19, 383/19, 398/19 & 117/2020 Madho Prakash vs. Shahi Realtech Pvt. Ltd. 2/14 with other directors. It is stated that CCPL entered into a joint development agreement with the respondent herein on 21.07.2008 for development of an immovable property. The said joint development agreement was executed by one Sanjay Kacker on behalf of CCPL, at which time the revisionist was employed as Executive Director in the Board of CCPL. Subsequently, some dispute arose between the respondent herein and CCPL, whereafter the respondent herein initiated winding up proceedings in the Delhi High Court, wherein on 09.07.2015 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court restrained CCPL from selling its assets. On 25.05.2017, the respondent herein entered into a settlement agreement with CCPL and one third party, whereby it was settled that CCPL shall pay a sum of Rs. 3,50,00,000/- upfront and a further sum of Rs. 31,50,00,000/- in four equal installments of Rs. 7,87,50,000/- each issued by CCPL. Revisionist states that neither the said settlement agreement nor the said 04 cheques were signed by him on behalf of CCPL. An amended settlement agreement dated 14.12.2017 was again executed between the parties as CCPL conveyed its inability to fulfill the obligations in terms of previous agreement dated 25.05.2017. A revised payment plan was laid down. At that time two cheques for a sum of Rs. 7 Lakhs each were issued by the revisionist for delay in making the payment, one of which was encashed and the other dated 15.04.2018 was dishonoured. Revisionist further claims that he tendered resignation from CCPL on 15.12.2017, which was accepted by the Board on 15.12.2017. Hence, he is not responsible for dishonour of any cheques presented for encashment after 15.12.2017.
3. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist argues that the revisionist is not a signatory to any settlement arrived at between CCPL, respondent herein and one other company, nor is he a signatory to any amended settlement Crl. Rev. No. 382/19, 383/19, 398/19 & 117/2020 Madho Prakash vs. Shahi Realtech Pvt. Ltd. 3/14 executed between the said parties. She further submits that the revisionist did not commit any overt act with respect to said transactions. She further submits that the revisionist was not associated with CCPL at the time of presentation of the said cheques. She further submits that the factum of resignation of revisionist from CCPL was easily verifiable from company master data /Form-32, which is a public document, but the Ld. Magistrate failed to consider the same before passing the summoning orders. She prays for setting aside the summoning order. She relied upon the following citations :-
a. Sudeep Jain vs. ECE Industries Ltd., Crl. M.C. 1821 & 1822/2013, Decided On : 06.05.2013.
b. DCM Financial Services Ltd. Vs. J.N. Sareen and Ors., Crl.
Appeal No. 875/2008 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4801 of 2007) Decided On : 13.05.2008.
c. S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla and Ors., Crl.
Appeal No. 664/2022, Decided on 20.09.2005.
d. Kamal Goyal vs. United Phosphorus Ltd., Crl. M.C. No. 1761/2009, Decided On : 04.02.2010.
e. Rajnit Chaudhary vs. Sanjeev Thareja & Sons, Crl. M.C. No. 3416/2007 & Crl. M.A. No. 12326/2007, Decided On 09.09.08. f. Man Mohan Patnaik vs. CISCO Systems Capital India Pvt. Ltd.
& Ors., Crl. M.C. 6461 & Crl. M.A. No. 25177/2022, Decided On 02.12.2022.
g. Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Ors. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors., Crl.
Appeal No. 1019/1997, Decided On 04.11.1997.
h. Alibaba Babibasha vs. Small Farmers Agri-Business Consortium & Ors., 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1250.
Crl. Rev. No. 382/19, 383/19, 398/19 & 117/2020 Madho Prakash vs. Shahi Realtech Pvt. Ltd. 4/14 i. Anita Malhotra vs. Apparel Export Promotion Council & Anr., (2012) 1 SCC 520.
j. DCM Financial Services Limited vs. J.N. Sareen and Anr., Decided on 13.05.2008.
k. S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Neeta Bhalla & Anr., (2005) 8 SCC
89. l. Kamal Goyal vs. United Phosphorus Ltd., 2010 (117) DRJ 104. m. Anil Chanana vs. M/s. Gyani Ram Ruliya Ram, CRM-M-
36868-2018, Decided On 30.10.2018.
n. Sudeep Jain vs. M/s. ECE Industries Ltd., Crl. M.C. 1821/2013 and Crl. M.C. 1822/2013, Decided on 06.05.20213.
o. Harshendra Kumar D. vs. Rebatilata Koley & Ors., (2011) 3SCC 351.
p. Meters and Instruments Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kanchan Mehta, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1197.
q. Gunmala Sales (P) Ltd. v. Anu Mehta, (2015) 1 SCC 103. r. Dashrath Rupsing Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2014) 9 SCC 129.
s. Vijay Dhanuka & Ors. vs. Najima Mamtaj & Ors. (2014) SCC 638.
4. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist placed before this Court a chart detailing the facts and circumstances of each of 04 complaint cases filed in the Court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The same is relevant and is reproduced hereunder for ready reference :-
Crl. Rev. No. 382/19, 383/19, 398/19 & 117/2020 Madho Prakash vs. Shahi Realtech Pvt. Ltd. 5/14 COMPARISON CHART ON BEHALF OF THE REVISIONIST PARTICULARS REVISION PETITION REVISION PETITION REVISION PETITION REVISION PETITION (383 of 2019) (398 of 2019) (382/2019) (117/2020) Summoning Order dated 14.01.2019 Order dated 27.06.2018 Order dated 14.01.2019 Order dated 01.09.2018 order passed by Ld.MM in CT passed by Ld.MM in CT passed by Ld.MM in CT passed by Ld. MM in CT No.-10587/2019 No.-8673/2019 No.- 9088/2018 No.-11746/2018 [Summoning Order @ [Summoning Order @ [Summoning Order @ [Summoning Order @ Annexure- R1, Pg-25] Annexure R1, Pg. A] Annexure-R1, Pg-25] Annexure-A, Pg-29] Details of Cheque no. 001089 dated Cheque no. 001088 dated Cheque no. 002392/- Cheque no. 002391, Cheque 30.08.2018 amounting to 15.04.2018 amounting to dated 31.07.2018 dated 31.05.2018 Rs. 7,87,50,000/- Rs. 7,87,50,000/- amounting to Rs. amounting to Rs. [Cheque @ Annexure [Cheque @ Annexure- 7,87,50,000 /- 7,87,50,000/-
R2, Pg -111] R2, Pg- 68] [Cheque @ Annexure- [Cheque @ Annexure
R2, Pg-108] -C, Pg-141]
Date of 10.09.2018 18.04.2018 31.07.2018 02.06.2018
Presentation (Cheque deposit slip @ (Cheque deposit slip @ (Cheque deposit slip @ (Cheque deposit slip
of cheque Annexure R2, Pg-111) Annexure -R2, Pg-69) Annexure -C, Pg-109) @ Annexure C, Pg-
142)
Return Dated as on 11.09.2018 Dated as on 19.04.2018 Dated 01.08.2018 for the Dated 04.06.2018 for
Memo / for the reason of "Account for the reason of "REKYC reason of "Account the reason of "REKYC
Dishonour of Blocked" Await Present again" Blocked". Await Present again"
cheque [Return Memo @ [Return Memo @ [Return Memo @ [Return Memo @
Annexure R2, Pg. 112] Annexure R3, Pg. 70] Annexure R2, Pg. 110] Annexure C, Pg. 143]
Signatory of Sanjeev J. Aeren Sanjeev J. Aeren M. P. Somani M.P. Somani
cheque (Accused No. 2) (Accused No. 2) (Accused No. 3) (Accused No. 3)
[Cheque @ Annexure [Cheque @ Annexure- [Cheque @ Annexure- [Cheque @ Annexure-
R2, Pg-111] R2, Pg-69] R2, Pg-109] C, Pg-142]
Date of 15.12.2017 15.12.2017 15.12.2017 15.12.2017
cessation of
Revisionist a) Letter dt. a) Letter dt. a) Letter dt. a) Letter dt.
from the post
15.12.2017- Vacation 15.12.2017- Vacation 15.12.2017- 15.12.2017-
of director
from office u/s 167 from office u/s 167 Vacation from Vacation from
[Annexure R3 @ Pg- [Annexure R3 @ Pg- office u/s 167 office u/s 167
148] 102] [Annexure R3 @ Pg- [Annexure-F @
146] Pg. 185]
b) Board b) Board
Resolution dt. Resolution dt. b) Board Resolution b) Board
15.12.2017- vacation 15.12.2017- vacation dt. 15.12.2017- Resolution dt.
from directorship was from directorship was vacation from 15.12.2017-
accepted by CCPL accepted by CCPL directorship was vacation from
[Annexure R3 @ Pg- [Annexure R3 @ Pg- accepted by CCPL directorship
149] 103] [Annexure R3 @ Pg- was accepted
147] by CCPL
c) DIR- 12 c) DIR- 12 [Annexure-F @
c) DIR- 12 Pg-186]
uploaded on ROC uploaded on ROC
[Annexure R3 @ Pg. [Annexure R3 @ uploaded on ROC
150 & 151] Pg.104 & 105] [Annexure R3 @ Pg. c) DIR- 12
148 & 149] uploaded on ROC
d) Company's d) No Master [Annexure- F @
d) Company's Pg. 187]
master data filed along data was filed along
Crl. Rev. No. 382/19, 383/19, 398/19 & 117/2020 Madho Prakash vs. Shahi Realtech Pvt. Ltd. 6/14
with Complaint with the Complaint master data filed along
showing Revisionist showing list of with Complaint d) Company's
was not a director at directors as on date of showing Revisionist
master data filed
the time of filing of filing of complaint. was not a director at
along with
Complaint. the time of filing of
Complaint showing
[Annexure R2, Pg. Complaint.
Revisionist was not
144] [Annexure R2, Pg.
a director at the
142]
time of filing of
Complaint.
[Annexure C, Pg.
177]
PARTICULARS REVISION PETITION REVISION PETITION REVISION PETITION REVISION PETITION
(383 of 2019) (398 of 2019) (382/2019) (117/2020)
5. Ld. Counsel for the respondent opposed the said prayer. She submitted that the revisionist induced the respondent to make huge investments in the project of CCPL, in lieu of which respondent was to be handed over a piece of developed property. She submitted that CCPL failed to fulfill her obligations, whereafter a winding up petition was filed by the respondent in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Subsequently a settlement agreement dated 25.07.2017 was executed between the parties, to which the revisionist is a signatory. She further submitted that the said settlement was for a sum of Rs. 35 Crore, out of which Rs. 3.50 Crore was paid upfront while for the rest of the amount, 04 post dated cheques were issued. She further submitted that an extension in payment was sought by CCPL, which was permitted by respondent and accordingly two additional cheques were issued in favour of respondent herein for a sum of Rs. 14 Lakh in total towards penalty for causing delay. She further submitted that out of the original 04 post dated cheques, the revisionist is a signatory to 02 of them. She prayed for dismissal of the revision petitions. She filed written submissions on record. She relied upon the following citations :-
a. S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Neeta Bhalla and Another, Crl. Rev. No. 382/19, 383/19, 398/19 & 117/2020 Madho Prakash vs. Shahi Realtech Pvt. Ltd. 7/14 (2005) 8 SCC 89.
b. V.K. Vohra vs. K.K. Ahuja & Anr., 2003 (67) DRJ 398. c. Ashutosh Ashok Parasrampuriya and Another vs. Gharrkul Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 915.
6. This Court has considered the rival submissions. The law regarding the liability of directors of a company has been dealt with and expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court firstly in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Neeta Bhalla and Another, (2005) 8 SCC 89. The relevant part of the observations is reproduced below :-
"...(a) It is necessary to specifically aver in a complaint under Sec- tion 141 that at the time the offence was committed, the person ac- cused was in charge of, and responsible for the conduct of business of the company. This averment is an essential requirement of Sec- tion 141 and has to be made in a complaint. Without this averment being made in a complaint, the requirements of Section 141 cannot be said to be satisfied.
(b) ...Merely being a director of a company is not sufficient to make the person liable under Section 141 of the Act. A director in a company cannot be deemed to be in charge of and responsible to the company for conduct of its business. The requirement of Sec-
tion 141 is that the person sought to be made liable should be in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time. This has to be averred as a fact as there is no deemed liability of a director in such cases.
(c) ...The question notes that the Managing Director or Joint Man- aging Director would be admittedly in charge of the company and responsible to the company for conduct of its business. When that is so, holders of such positions in a company become liable un- der Section 141 of the Act. By virtue of the office they hold as Managing Director or Joint Managing Director, these persons are in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of the company. Therefore, they get covered under Section 141. So far as signatory of a cheque which is dishonoured is concerned, he is clearly responsible for the incriminating act and will be covered under sub-section (2) of Section 141..."
Crl. Rev. No. 382/19, 383/19, 398/19 & 117/2020 Madho Prakash vs. Shahi Realtech Pvt. Ltd. 8/14
7. In K.K. Ahuja v. V.K. Vohra (2009) 10 SCC 48, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had summarised the position under Section 141 as under:
"20. The position under section 141 of the Act can be summarized thus :
(i) If the accused is the Managing Director or a Joint Managing Di-
rector, it is not necessary to make an averment in the complaint that he is in charge of, and is responsible to the company, for the con- duct of the business of the company. It is sufficient if an averment is made that the accused was the Managing Director or Joint Manag- ing Director at the relevant time. This is because the prefix `Manag- ing' to the word `Director' makes it clear that they were in charge of and are responsible to the company, for the conduct of the business of the company.
(ii) In the case of a director or an officer of the company who signed the cheque on behalf of the company, there is no need to make a specific averment that he was in charge of and was respon- sible to the company, for the conduct of the business of the company or make any specific allegation about consent, connivance or negli- gence. The very fact that the dishonoured cheque was signed by him on behalf of the company, would give rise to responsibility under sub-section (2) of Section 141.
(iii) In the case of a Director, Secretary or Manager (as defined in Sec. 2(24) of the Companies Act) or a person referred to in clauses
(e) and (f) of section 5 of Companies Act, an averment in the com- plaint that he was in charge of, and was responsible to the com- pany, for the conduct of the business of the company is necessary to bring the case under section 141(1). No further averment would be necessary in the complaint, though some particulars will be desir- able. They can also be made liable under section 141(2) by making necessary averments relating to consent and connivance or negli- gence, in the complaint, to bring the matter under that sub-section.
(iv) Other Officers of a company can not be made liable under sub- section (1) of section 141. Other officers of a company can be made liable only under sub-section (2) of Section 141, be averring in the complaint their position and duties in the company and their role in regard to the issue and dishonour of the cheque, disclosing consent, connivance or negligence..."
Crl. Rev. No. 382/19, 383/19, 398/19 & 117/2020 Madho Prakash vs. Shahi Realtech Pvt. Ltd. 9/14
8. On similar lines, the Hon‟ble Apex Court in National Small Indus- tries Corp. Ltd. v. Harmeet Singh Paintal (2010) 3 SCC 330 carved out the following principles:
"39. From the above discussion, the following principles emerge:
(i) The primary responsibility is on the complainant to make spe-
cific averments as are required under the law in the complaint so as to make the accused vicariously liable. For fastening the crimi- nal liability, there is no presumption that every Director knows about the transaction.
(ii) Section 141 does not make all the Directors liable for the of- fence. The criminal liability can be fastened only on those who, at the time of the commission of the offence, were in charge of and were responsible for the conduct of the business of the company.
(iii) Vicarious liability can be inferred against a company regis- tered or incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 only if the requisite statements, which are required to be averred in the com- plaint/petition, are made so as to make the accused therein vicari- ously liable for offence committed by the company along with aver- ments in the petition containing that the accused were in charge of and responsible for the business of the company and by virtue of their position they are liable to be proceeded with.
(iv) Vicarious liability on the part of a person must be pleaded and proved and not inferred.
(v) If the accused is a Managing Director or a Joint Managing Di- rector then it is not necessary to make specific averment in the complaint and by virtue of their position they are liable to be pro- ceeded with.
(vi) If the accused is a Director or an officer of a company who signed the cheques on behalf of the company then also it is not nec- essary to make specific averment in the complaint.
9. In S.P. Mani and Mohan Dairy vs. Dr. Snehlatha Elangovan 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1238, Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the law as under :-
45. Once the necessary averments are made in the statutory notice issued by the complainant in regard to the vicarious liability of the partners and upon receipt of such notice, if the partner keeps quiet and does not say anything in reply to the same, then the com-
plainant has all the reasons to believe that what he has stated in the Crl. Rev. No. 382/19, 383/19, 398/19 & 117/2020 Madho Prakash vs. Shahi Realtech Pvt. Ltd. 10/14 notice has been accepted by the noticee. In such circumstances what more is expected of the complainant to say in the complaint. .......................................................................................
47. Our final conclusions may be summarised as under:
a.) The primary responsibility of the complainant is to make specific averments in the complaint so as to make the accused vicariously li- able. For fastening the criminal liability, there is no legal require- ment for the complainant to show that the accused partner of the firm was aware about each and every transaction. On the other hand, the first proviso to subsection (1) of Section 141 of the Act clearly lays down that if the accused is able to prove to the satisfac- tion of the Court that the offence was committed without his/her knowledge or he/she had exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence, he/she will not be liable of punishment. b.) The complainant is supposed to know only generally as to who were in charge of the affairs of the company or firm, as the case may be. The other administrative matters would be within the spe- cial knowledge of the company or the firm and those who are in charge of it. In such circumstances, the complainant is expected to allege that the persons named in the complaint are in charge of the affairs of the company/firm. It is only the Directors of the company or the partners of the firm, as the case may be, who have the special knowledge about the role they had played in the company or the partners in a firm to show before the court that at the relevant point of time they were not in charge of the affairs of the company. Adver- tence to Sections 138 and Section 141 respectively of the NI Act shows that on the other elements of an offence under Section 138 being satisfied, the burden is on the Board of Directors or the officers in charge of the affairs of the company/partners of a firm to show that they were not liable to be convicted. The existence of any special circumstance that makes them not liable is something that is peculiarly within their knowledge and it is for them to establish at the trial to show that at the relevant time they were not in charge of the affairs of the company or the firm.
c.) Needless to say, the final judgement and order would depend on the evidence adduced. Criminal liability is attracted only on those, who at the time of commission of the offence, were in charge of and were responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm. But vi- carious criminal liability can be inferred against the partners of a firm when it is specifically averred in the complaint about the status of the partners 'qua' the firm. This would make them liable to face Crl. Rev. No. 382/19, 383/19, 398/19 & 117/2020 Madho Prakash vs. Shahi Realtech Pvt. Ltd. 11/14 the prosecution but it does not lead to automatic conviction. Hence, they are not adversely prejudiced if they are eventually found to be not guilty, as a necessary consequence thereof would be acquittal. d.) If any Director wants the process to be quashed by filing a peti- tion under Section 482 of the Code on the ground that only a bald averment is made in the complaint and that he/she is really not con- cerned with the issuance of the cheque, he/she must in order to per- suade the High Court to quash the process either furnish some ster- ling incontrovertible material or acceptable circumstances to sub- stantiate his/her contention. He/she must make out a case that mak- ing him/her stand the trial would be an abuse of process of Court.
48. We reiterate the observations made by this Court almost a decade back in the case of Rallis India Ltd v. Poduru Vidya Bhusan & Ors., (2011) 13 SCC 88, as to how the High Court should exer- cise its power to quash the criminal proceeding when such proceed- ing is related to offences committed by the companies. "The world of commercial transactions contains numerous unique intricacies, many of which are yet to be statutorily regulated. More particularly, the principle laid down in Section 141 of the NI Act (which is pari materia with identical sections in other Acts like the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006; the erstwhile Prevention of Food Adulter- ation Act, 1954; etc.) is susceptible to abuse by unscrupulous com- panies to the detriment of unsuspecting third parties." 10 Thus, the settled position of law is that the signatory of the dishonoured cheque is responsible for the dishonour of a cheque and will be covered under sub-section 2 of section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act. No exception has been carved out for a Director, who was no longer associated with the company at the time of dishonour of cheque. The citations relied upon by the revisionist mostly pertain to cases in which the Directors had resigned from company much before the issuance of cheques. In the present case, the said cheques were issued at the time when the revisionist was in the employment of CCPL. In fact, the revisionist is a signatory of cheque no. 002392 dated 31.07.2018 and cheque no. 002391 dated 31.05.2018 both drawn on HDFC Bank and issued in favour of the respondent herein in the sum of Rs. 7,87,50,000/- each. Upon the Crl. Rev. No. 382/19, 383/19, 398/19 & 117/2020 Madho Prakash vs. Shahi Realtech Pvt. Ltd. 12/14 dishonour of both these cheques separate complaints bearing numbers CT No. 9088/2018 and CT No. 11746/2018 were filed by the respondent herein under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Against the summoning orders passed in the above two complaints, in respect of the dishonour of above mentioned two cheques, revision petitions bearing numbers 382/2019 and 117/2020 were filed. In view of the settled legal position with respect to the liability of the revisionist (being a signatory) herein qua the above said two cheques, revision petitions bearing numbers 382/2019 and 117/2020 are hereby dismissed.
11. Now we are left with two revision petitions bearing numbers 383/2019 and 398/2019 against summoning orders passed by the Ld. Magistrate in complaints bearing number CT 10587/2019 and CT 8673/2019 filed in respect of dishonour of cheque bearing number 001089 dated 30.08.2018 and cheque bearing no. 001088 dated 15.04.2018 both drawn on HDFC Bank and issued in favour of the respondent herein in the sum of Rs. 7,87,50,000/- each. A bare perusal of the relevant trial Court records reflect that above mentioned two cheques were issued by CCPL in pursuance to amended settlement agreement dated 14.12.2017 arrived at between CCPL, the respondent herein and a third party. At that time the revisionist was an Executive Director in CCPL (as per para no. 7 and 9 of revision petitions). The respondent herein has made categorical averments in the relevant complaints filed in the Court of Ld. Magistrate that the revisionist and others made false representations to induce it to enter into the settlement agreement dated 25.05.2017 and thereafter 04 post dated cheques were issued by CCPL (all the 04 cheques are the subject matter of the present revision petitions). Respondent has further averred that revisionist herein was in charge of and responsible to CCPL at the relevant Crl. Rev. No. 382/19, 383/19, 398/19 & 117/2020 Madho Prakash vs. Shahi Realtech Pvt. Ltd. 13/14 time. The fact that 02 of the said 04 post dated cheques were signed by revisionist herein on behalf of CCPL reflects that the revisionist was in- charge of and responsible to CCPL at the relevant time. As such the prayer made by the revisionist could not be allowed. More so, when the revisionist does not aver in the present petitions that he had sent a reply to the statutory notice issued by respondent after the dishonour of the relevant cheques. The citations relied upon by the revisionist mostly pertain to cases wherein the directors of the company had resigned much prior to the issuance of the dishonoured cheques, and therefore none of the said citations could be relied upon to allow the prayer made by the revisionist. Accordingly, revisions petitions no. 383/2019 and 398/2019 are also dismissed in view of the peculiar facts of the present cases.
12. TCRs be sent back along with the copy of this judgment.
13. All the revision files be consigned to Record Room.
Announced & Dictated in the Open Court today i.e. 25.07.2023.
(Lovleen) ASJ-03 (South East) Saket Courts, Delhid Crl. Rev. No. 382/19, 383/19, 398/19 & 117/2020 Madho Prakash vs. Shahi Realtech Pvt. Ltd. 14/14