[CASE NUMBER] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 20.09.2019 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE [ENTITY] [CASE NUMBER] and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.1610 of 2018 [ENTITY] The Director, M/s.Servalakshmi paper Ltd., No.31, (OLD NO.10Z) Bharathi Park, 7th Cross Road, Sai Baba Colony, Coimbatore-641011. Petitioner/Accused No.5 Vs. [ENTITY], Managing Director, M/s.Quantum Coal Energy (P) Ltd., No.141-A, [SECTION], Second Floor, Alagarkoil Main Road, Tallakulam, Madurai-2. Through his power agent Mr.[ENTITY] Respondent/Defacto complainant Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under [SECTION] of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pursuant to the complaint in [CASE NUMBER] on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, (FTC) Madurai, quash the same in so far as the petitioner concern. http: www.judis.nic.in 1/6 [CASE NUMBER] For Petitioner : Mr.[ENTITY] For Respondent : Mr.[ENTITY] ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking to quash the complaint complaint in [CASE NUMBER] on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, (FTC) Madurai.
2. The petitioner before this Court is arrayed as A5 in the criminal complaint filed by the respondent under [SECTION] & [SECTION] of the [ACT].
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner primarily raised two grounds. First ground that has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the alleged cheque in this case was issued only on 02.11.2015 by the first accused company. This petitioner had resigned from the company on 07.10.2015 itself and the same is reflected in the statutory document issued by the Registrar of Companies. Therefore the learned counsel would submit that the petitioner was not even a Director of the Company on the date when the cheque was issued in favour of the respondent. http: www.judis.nic.in
4. The next ground that has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there are absolutely no averments against the petitioner in the complaint except stating that the petitioner was a Director and was actively involved in the business.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the issue with regard to the resignation of the petitioner cannot be dealt with by this Court since it is factual in nature and the same has to be decided only in the course of trial. He would further submit that necessary allegations has been made in the complaint against this petitioner and there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the proceedings pending before the court below.
6. This Court has considered the submissions made on either side.
7.Insofar as the first ground that has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is seen from records that the Form DIR -12 issued by the Registrar of Companies clearly point out the fact that the petitioner had resigned from the first accused company w.e.f.07.10.2015. This document which is in question is a public document. The Honourable Supreme Court had an occasion http: www.judis.nic.in to deal with the issue as to whether Form-32 can be considered at the time of dealing with the petition under [SECTION] of [ACT] The Honourable Supreme Court after dealing with the issue in detail has categorically held that such a record is sterling in nature and therefore that can be relied upon by the court at the time of dealing with quash petition. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT]. It is also relevant to rely upon the judgment in [PRECEDENT], rep by Mr.[ENTITY] reported in 2006(4)CTC page43.
8.Even otherwise a reading of the complaint reveals the fact that a general averment has been made against accused 3 to5, who are the Directors of the Company. There is absolutely no averment with regard to the nature of involvement of this petitioner as a Director inorder to substantiate that he is involved in the day to day affairs of the company. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT]. References can also be made to the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in National http: www.judis.nic.in [PRECEDENT].
9. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the proceedings as against the present petitioner deserved to be quashed and accordingly the same is quashed. It is made clear that the court below shall proceed further with the complaint insofar as other accused persons are concerned and complete the proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
20/09/2019 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order dss To The Judicial Magistrate No.I, (FTC), Madurai, http: www.judis.nic.in [ENTITY], J.
dss and 20/09/2019 http: www.judis.nic.in