Crl. Misc. No.M-31414 of 2009 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-31414 of 2009 Date of decision.04.03.2010 1. G.P. Forest Development (India) Ltd. Through S. Avtar Singh, Managing Director, SCO 196, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh. 2. Avtar Singh Managing Director of M/s GP Forests Development (India) Ltd. Chandigarh, r/o H.No. 337, Model Town, Ambala City. ....... Petitioners Versus Pawan Kumar s/o Baru Ram, r/o village Pansara, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamunanagar. ........ Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present:- Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondent. -- Sham Sunder, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioners, for quashing complaint bearing No. 217/2 dated 1.5.2001 (Annexure P-1), titled as Pawan Kumar v. M/s GP Forests Development (India) Limited' and summoning order dated 28.10.2003, rendered by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri, (Annexure P-2). 2. The respondent/complainant instituted a complaint bearing No. 217/2 dated 1.5.2001, referred to above, under Crl. Misc. No.M-31414 of 2009 --2-- Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (hereinafter to be called Act only), against the petitioner/Company, on account of dis-honour of cheque bearing No. 292559 dated 21.9.2000 for a sum of Rs.9090/-, drawn in favour of Punjab & Sind Bank, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, which had been issued in the discharge of legally enforceable liability. 3. After recording the preliminary evidence, the trial Court, came to the conclusion, that there were sufficient grounds for summoning the accused. Accordingly, the accused was summoned to face trial, for the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the Act. 4. I have heard the Counsel for the petitioners, and have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 5. The Counsel for the petitioners, vehemently contended that vide order dated 09.05.2002 , this Court had ordered the winding up of petitioner no.1-Company and, therefore, in view of Section 446 of the Companies Act, prosecution could not be launched against the petitioners. He further submitted that after the passing of the order of winding up, the prosecution, if already launched, could not be continued. He placed reliance on Rattan Lal Garera and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 636 and Anil Handa v. Indian Acrylic Ltd., 2000 Criminal Law Journal, 373 in support of his contention. Crl. Misc. No.M-31414 of 2009 --3-- 6. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the petitioners, in my considered opinion, it is a fit case, in which the petition should be accepted, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Annexure P-3, is the order dated 16.05.2003, in CP No. 50 of 2001, vide which winding up of petitioner no.1-Company, was ordered by this Court. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, was to the effect, that criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Act, would not be maintainable, against the Company or its Directors, after the order of winding up of the same (Company), had been passed. It was further held that even the criminal proceedings, which had already been pending, could not be continued, after passing of the order of winding up of the Company. In view of the unequivocal provisions of Section 446 of the Companies Act, and the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, after passing of the order of winding up of petitioner no.1-Company, could not be instituted or continued against the Company, or its Directors. In this view of the matter, criminal miscellaneous, deserves to be accepted. 7. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 31414 of 2009 is accepted. Criminal complaint bearing No. 217/2 dated 1.5.2001 (Annexure P-1), Crl. Misc. No.M-31414 of 2009 --4-- titled as Pawan Kumar v. M/s GP Forests Development (India) Limited' and the summoning order dated 28.10.2003, rendered by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri, (Annexure P-2), are quashed. 8. Any observation, made in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. 9. The Registry is directed to send copies of the order, to the Courts concerned, immediately. March 04,2010 (SHAM SUNDER) dinesh JUDGE