../ 4.?) IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR H Criminal Misc. Petition No.372 of 2009 PONERS: ETITI 1. (A) Shib Sankar Das Mahapatra, S/o B.N. Das Mahapatra, age 53 yrs., Director Radhika Mines Pvt. Ltd., 339, Gautam Nagar, Bhubaneshwar— 751014 (Orissa) Shib Sankar Das Mahapatra, ‘S/o B.N. Das Mahapatra, age 53 yrs. Director Radhika Mines Pvt. Ltd., 339, Exporter & Raising Contractor, b Jaydev Vihar, Hotel Myfair Lagoon Complex, Bhubaneshwar 751013 (Orissa) mt. Rebeka Dasmahapatra, W/o S.S. Das Mahapatra, age 5O yrs., Director Radhika Mines Pvt. Ltd., 339, Gautam Nagar, Bhubaneshwar- 751014 (Orissa) Smt. Rebeka Dasmahapatra, W/o 8.8. Das Mahapatra, age 5O yrs., Director Radhika Mines Pvt. Ltd., Exporter & Raising Contractor, 8b Jaydev Vihar, Hotel Myfair Lagoon Complex, Bhubanshwar-75113 (Orissa) Versus RESPONDENTS: Vandana Global Limited, A Company duiy incorporated and registered under relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956,, having its Registered Ofdce at ‘Vandana Bhawan’, MG. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Through its duly authorized representative (Power of ‘Attorney Holder) — Shri Ravindra Nath Shahi, (D.G.M.-Coordination), aged 43 years, S/o Late Shri Nageshwar Prasad Shahi, R/o Dr.'Ambedkar Nagar, Opposite Kedia Bucket Factory, Gudhiari, Raipur (C.G.) Radhika Mines Pvt. Ltd., 339, Gautam Nagar, Bhubaneshwar- 751014 (Orissa) (B) Radhika Mines Pvt. Ltd., Exporter & Raising Contractor, 8b Jaydev Vihar, Hotel Myfair Lagoon Complex, Bhubaneshwar-751013 (Orissa) Shri Mahabir Prasad Gupta, Director Radhika Mines Pvt. Ltd., 339, (A) (A) 8 — S e0 Gautam Nagar, Bhubaneshwar— 751 01 4 (Orissa) B) Shri Mahabir Prasad Gupta, Director Radhika Mines Pvt. Ltd., Exporter & Raising Contractor, 8b Jaydev Vihar, Hotel Myfair Lagoon Complex, Bhubaneshwar—751013 (Orissa) (A) Shri Biraja Prasad Kar, Director Radhika Mines Pvt. Ltd., 339, Gautam Nagar, Bhubaneshwar— 751014 (Orissa) (B) Shri Biraja Prasad Kar, Director Radhika Mines Pvt. Ltd., Exporter & Raising Contractor, 8b Jaydev Vihar, Hotel Myfair Lagoon Complex, Bhubaneshwar—751013 (Orissa) (C) Shri Biraja Prasad Kar, Director Radhika Mines Pvt. Ltd., 772, Saheed Nagar, Bhubashwar- 751013 (Orissa) {Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973} I Present: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Mohit Dewan, Advocate appears suo motu on behalf of the \ complainant/respondent No.1. ' Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL ORDER (23-7-2009) 1. By this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashment of criminal complaint filed by respondent No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Act’) pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal . Case No.459/2009 on the ground that the complaint filed on behalf ofthe complainant/respondent No.1 is barred by limitation in accordance with Sections 138 (c) & 142 of the Act. I l have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant was required to plead specifically the part played by the Directors/accused persons and was also required to plead the part payment made by the respondents, but in absence of such pleading, and on the ground o ( ne . . f mtation the resent crimal cae pending before the Judicial atr First lass, aipur is not tainabie and continuance of h ceedin wul use seris prejudice to the petitioners. rd counsel relied on the order passed by this Court on 1-7—2008 in r..No.113/008 (Jul Kishore Agarwal v. Pradeep Kumar ‘ Arwa whic ts Court has held in pa 12 of its order that “ ca f comlain under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 it is the complainant is required t me spcific alleation relating to dishonor f the eque, iunce f the notice, receipt of the ce an filing of complaint within limitation or sufficie cause s requred uer Sections 138 and 12 of h oble instrumets Act, 1881 if such mpli is no led within limitatn prescribed." . Leaed e itnrs of Ana da v . Godther Trv ‘A SCW in wich h m s Aex ou n the n ha hh nat ihro arraying ompany as ccused. . On he d r e rondnt No1 d n a sed p & resd 2 o f pny Ra es -20 n pt omlnt t ed rss o 42 hi 3 da sa di e omplanan e ng w dihg liilit he, c e mh om le of nt dan w ) ead with ection 142 f the ct. Lre counsel urthe ts that therafter, the Cmpany irector has paid Rs.3 lahs as ' at aymn, but ey have not fully dirged heir liabilit therefore, he claint in he resent orm is maintainabl agaist t ccused pesons ditte, the resent complainant has not mentiond t dat o serice f notice on he accuse persons, but according to the ontentin the otr han, leaned counsel apparing on behalf of espe ' . oppose the petitio nd ubmitt that the present etitioners ponents No. t 4 are Directors o the Coma i.e. dhika Min P L d ey are liable for ayment f he cheque d y the‘ vt. td. an th p o t issue b pany. Dishour of heue was intimated to he complaant on 1 Com on cq t in 8— 108 ad the resen cpaina has served notice o the accus peon n 1--2008 witn 0 ys of the id shonour. Th cit has med recipt of notice alo ith the complaint. Notices e erved un the cused on 29—2-2008 but the have not fully scared the aby. Treafter the complainant has filed omplaint wer s po ac y on ont after the expiry of 15 days of notice. The cplaint fid on behalf the complaina is within limitation in accorce ith Section 138 (c r S o A eand fr submi e o D k pr pet th scha t y, t omp t p f e n he a r. . Amdly p e he e f v o t d co lii p in s Mgisate C R main suc prog od ca ou Leane up CMP.2 ga gal) in h hi ra ln se o pt s o ak e g o ch ssa o noti d the nt a i nd 4 te Negtia n coant t ti io rn counsel for th petioe further placed reliance in the matter eet Ha . Mls fa aels & Tours Pvt. Ltd. (2008 IR 3608) h te atter wa referred to larger Bench by the p Crt o poit tt weter prosecution of authorized sigory/person ncarge/Diectr, individually is permissible without C a of respondent No.1, the complainant has med document in support of service of notice which is part & parcei of the complaint. However, copy of said service report or receipt was not fiied by the petitioners along with the petition. If limitation is calculated on the basis of receipt of notice dated 29-2-2008, the present complaint tiled on 9-4-2008 is within limitation. Thus, the present complaint is within limitation. . s regards the question of part payment, admittedly the accused persons have not discharged the liability, but they have partially ischarged their liability, therefore, the present complaint is maintainable under the law for the remaining liability. . Consequently, the complaint filed on behalf of respondent No.1 is maintainable under the law and no prejudice has been caused to the etitioners in the present case. The Apex Court has referred the case ’of neeta (supra) to larger Bench on the point that whether the complaint s maintainable against the Directors without impleading the Company as ccused. ln the present case, the complainant has made the Company s accused No.1. Therefore, the case of Aneeta (supra) is distinguishable on facts to that of the present case. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. 10.Consequently, l.A.No.1 stands disposed of. / /’"sdl— \- y“ 1 P. Sha‘ma f ,Lx—r a A d p . A i a a .