JUDGEMENT
SUNEET KUMAR, J. -
(1.) By means of this recall application, the applicant seeks to recall order dated 28.3.2016, whereby the petition was disposed of directing the court below to conclude the trial under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 ( N.I.Act) expeditiously within a stipulated period without granting unnecessary adjournment.
(2.) The applicant herein sought quashing of proceedings of complaint case No. 3255 of 1999 (Rajendra Swarup Dixit Vs. Aneja Consultancy and another), filed under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C was filed by Sri Manu Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. The matter was argued at length by the counsel, thereafter, petition was disposed of. The present recall application has been instituted by a subsequently engaged counsel, Sri Anil Tiwari, along with the earlier counsel, who appeared to press the recall application.
(3.) The assertions made in the recall application are on the merit of the case stating therein that the cheques in question was signed by the applicant as authorized signatory of a proprietor firm M/s Aneja Consultancy, therefore, the applicant would not be liable for prosecution. Upon being summoned the applicant, as well as, Chief Managing Director of the firm, filed objection against the summoning order and an application for discharge. Discharge application was rejected against which the applicant filed a petition being Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 7015 of 2001, wherein, vide order dated 6.12.2001, further proceedings of complaint case against petitioner/applicant was stayed. The writ petition was subsequently dismissed in default on 3.4.2015 and remains as such till date. It is sought to be contended that thereafter on the issuance of warrant, the entire proceedings of complaint was challenged in proceeding under section 482 Cr.P.C which was disposed of by this court, order passed therein is being sought to be recalled. It is sought to be contended that unless the firm is prosecuted, the official of the firm as such cannot be prosecuted in view of Section 141 N.I. Act. Reliance has been placed upon Aneeta Hada Vs. Godfather Travels and Tours (P) Ltd, 2008(13) SCC 703. It is further contended that the applicant is prepared to deposit the entire sum due before this Court to show his bonafide, therefore, the legal questions that is being raised in the recall application be decided by this Court.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.