PURAN CHAND Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Patil appearing for the petitioner and Shri Naik appearing for the respondent.

(2.) The prayer in these petitions is for quashing the proceedings of a complaints bearing nos. 705/S/97 and 706/S/97 filed by the second respondent under section 138 read with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioners in these petitions have been arraigned as accused in the complaint filed by the second respondent in their alleged capacity as Directors of the first respondent M/s. Mithila Steel Industries Limited.

(3.) The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in these petitions is that on plain reading of the averments made in the complaint filed by the second respondent, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of S.M.S Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Nita Bhalla & another, 2005 4 AllMR 1118], the process could not have been issued against the petitioners in these petitions. It is submitted that the petitioners had ceased to be the Directors of the first accused company. It is submitted that though the petitioners ceased to be the Directors after the cheque was issued, in view of judgment of this Court, dated 19th August 1998, in a case of H. M. Dave Mulshankar Dave v. M/s. Gitanjali Shah and Another, the complaint as against the petitioners will have to be quashed. He pointed out that the applicant in the said criminal application was also one of the accused in the said complaints filed by the second respondent. I have heard learned counsel appearing for second respondent who opposed the petitions.