NIPAM KOTWAL DIRECTOR DIGITAL MULTIFORMS LTD Vs. DOMINOS PRINTECH INDIA PVT LTD
LAWS(DLH)-2007-11-103
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on November 28,2007

NIPAM KOTWAL, DIRECTOR, M/S. DIGITAL MULTIFORMS LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
DOMINOS PRINTECH INDIA PVT. LTD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE present petition has been filed under Section 482 Crpc for quashing of the criminal complaint No. 1962/01 pending before the court of metropolitan Magistrate and the proceedings thereunder qua the petitioners.
(2.) THE brief facts of this case are that the accused company in which the present petitioners are the Directors, placed order for certain Ink Jet printers and certain cheques have been issued by the accused company in favour of the respondents for part payment of those Ink Jet Printers. Thereafter, the said cheques have got bounced. Notice under Section 138 of negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act') had been issued by the respondent to all the Directors of the accused company including the petitioners. A criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Act was filed by the respondent company thereby arraying the petitioner along with other persons as accused and vide the impugned order dated 8. 12. 2005, all the accused persons including the present petitioners, had been summoned by the learned trial court to face trial before it.
(3.) IT has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no material on record to connect the petitioner with commission of the alleged offence under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Act in the absence of any averment in the complaint that the petitioners were In charge of and responsible for the day-to-day affairs and conduct of the business of the accused company. It is also contended that the fulfilment of requirements of Section 141 of the Act is the condition precedent and is sine-qua-non for summoning of the petitioners, which is manifestly lacking in the complaint. Moreover, no prosecution could have been launched against the present petitioners in the absence of any averment that the petitioners have signed the alleged cheque in question. Even other wise, the petitioners were not the authorized signatory of the company and were merely sleeping Director. No specific role has been assigned to any of the petitioners.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.