R.K.Gauba, J. - (1.) On the criminal complaint (CC No.219/01/2015), originally presented in 2012, by order dated 16.09.2015, the petitioners along with five others have been summoned as accused to face criminal prosecution on the accusations of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 qua certain cheques which were issued in favour of the second respondent (the complainant) against the account of M/s. Amtek Rail Car Industries Pvt. Ltd., the role of the petitioners, impleaded in the array as third and fourth accused, having been described as that of directors in the said company which has also been summoned as accused by the same order.
(2.) The petitioners, feeling aggrieved, have approached this court by the petition at hand under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of the said criminal proceedings primarily on the ground that the averments in the complaint and the documents filed therewith do not make out a case for they to be held vicariously accountable under the criminal law particularly with reference to the provision contained in Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
(3.) The petition has been resisted by the second respondent (the complainant) and the prime argument raised is that a similar challenge earlier brought vide Crl.M.C.3788/2012 was repelled by decision dated 31.07.2015. The submissions of the learned counsel on both sides indisputably bring out that the said decision dated 31.07.2015 was rendered against order dated 07.07.2012, which had been earlier passed, albeit on the same criminal complaint, by a court of metropolitan magistrate, which order became non est, after the complaint had been returned for want of jurisdiction in view of the ruling of the Supreme Court reported as Dashrath Rupsingh Rathor vs. State of Maharashtra, 2014 9 SCC 129. The complaint, after return, has been represented and the order which is impugned here is a fresh order dated 16.09.2015 and so gives a fresh cause of action to the petitioners to raise their submissions. At any rate, the objections now raised against the subsequent order were not agitated nor adjudicated upon in the earlier proceedings. Therefore, there is no inhibition in the present challenge being entertained.;