HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Criminal Misc. Petition No.371 of 2009 1. (A) Shib Sankar Das Mahapatra, S/o B.N. Das Mahapatra, age 53 yrs., Director Radhika Mines Pvt. Ltd., 339‘ Gautam Nagar, Bhubaneshwar— 751 O1 4 (Orissa) PETITIONERS: (B) Shib Sankar Das Mahapatra, S/o B.N. Das Mahapatra, age 53 yrs. Director Radhika Mines Pvt. Ltd., 339, Exporter & Raising Contractor, 8b Jaydev Vihar, Hotel Myfair Lagoon Complex, Bhubaneshwar— 751013 (Orissa) Smt. Rebeka Dasmahapatra, W/o 8.8. Das Mahapatra, age 50 yrs., Director Radhika Mines Pvt. Ltd., 339, Gautam Nagar, Bhubaneshwar- 751014 (Orissa) (B) Smt. Rebeka Dasmahapatra, W/o 3.8. Das Mahapatra, age 5O yrs., Director Radhika Mines Pvt. Ltd., Exporter & Raising Contractor, 8 Jaydev Vihar, Hotel Myfair Lagoon Complex, Bhubaneshwar—751013 (Orissa) Versus Vandana Global Limited, A Company dulty incorporated and registered under relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at ‘Vandana Bhawan’, MG. Road, Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS: Through its duly authorized representative (Power of Attorney Holder) — 8hri Ravindra Nath 8hahi, (D.G.M.—Coordination), aged 43 years, 8/0 Late 8hri Nageshwar Prasad 8hahi, R/o Dr. Ambedka Nagar, Opposite Kedia Bucket Factory, Gudhiari, Raipur (C.G.) Radhika Mnes Pvt. Ltd., 339, Gautam Nagar, Bhubaneshwar- 51014 (Orissa) Radhika Mines Pvt. Ltd., Exporter & Raising Contractor, 8b Jaydev Vihar, Hotel Myfair Lagoon Complex, Bhubaneshwar—751013 (Orissa) 8hri Mahabir Prasad Gupta, Directo Radhika Mines Pvt. Ltd., 339, b r i 7 r Gautam Nagar, Bhubaneshwar- 751014 (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—751 O1 3 (Orissa) (C) Shri Biraja Prasad Kar, Director Radhika Mines Pvt. Ltd., 772, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneshwar- 751013 (Orissa) {Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminai Procedure, 1973} Present: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Mohit Dewan, Advocate appears suo motu on behalf of the ‘ omplainant/respondent No.1. Single Bench: Hon’bie Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL ORDER (23—7-2009) , 1. By this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashment of criminal complaint flied 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.458/2009 on the groUnd that the complaint filed on behalf of the complainant/respondent No.1 is barred by limitation in acCordance with Sections 138 (c) & 142 of the Act. . 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 specmcally 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 of c . imitation the present criminal case pending before the Judicial agistrate First Class, Raipur is not maintainabie and continuance of such proceeding would cause serious prejudice to the petitioners. earned counsel relied upon the order passed by this Court on 1—7-2008 in Cr.M.P.No.113/2008 (Jugal Kishore Agarwal v. Pradeep Kumar Aarwal) in which this Court has held in para 12 of its order that “in case of complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act, 1881 it is the complainant is required to make specific allegation relating to dishonor of the cheque, issuance of the notice, receipt of the notice and filing of the complaint within limitation or sufficien cause as ruird under Section 138 a 42 of Negoiable Instruments Act, 1 if suh complaint i no il within itation prescribd. earne counsel fo the titioners furtr place reliance in he mer ta Hada . ls. Godfather Travels & ou Pvt. Ltd. (208 IR W 3608) in hich e matter w referred to lger Bnch th Apx Court o t point that heth rosecutio of authore signtory/per incharge/Directr, invidually is perssible without aaying ompany as accused. . On th oter hand, learnd counsel appearin on half of sponnt .1 ose the ptition and submitted hat the pre petitioner & espts No.2 t 4 ar Diectors of th omp .e. Radhika ines t. Ltd. nd they are lible for yment f th chue issd b the a. Dishour of heq was ntmated to the cmpint n - 20 and the pesent complainat has served t to the aused persn on 16208 witn 30 y of the id isnour. he pinant has filed reei of otice alng with the comlaint. Notices ere served upon e accused —2-2008 but they have not full scared the liabty. Therear, te complainant has tile complint ne month after the xpiry f 15 ay of notice. The complaint tiled n ehalf of the complaina s witn liitn in accorc h ecto 3 c) read i ecion 14 of e Act. Learned ounsel furthe sub hat thereaftr, th Cmpany Dirctor has paid Rs.5 lakhs art payent, bu hy hve not fly dcharged their liability, theefore, , t comain in th present for is maintainable against h ccused perons. ittedly, the resent complinant s not mentioed the ate of erve o notice on e accusd persons, but according t the contention l l M L g t eqe s nd 1 the t 881 c s t fed lim e" . Ld r pe he d t att of Anee v M Trs 0 A SC w th as ar e by e e n he wer pn izd ason o di mi rr C e h e g be rede No ppod e t sent s ronden o e r e Cany i M Pv a a pa o e eq ue y Compny on cue ii olaan o 29 1—08 r n noice cc os —2-0 hi das sa dho T comla cpt n o p w th on 29 y dihg ili fte h d a o e o ds o b nt i hi matio dane wit Sin ‘ 18 ( wth St 2 th c r mits t e e o e as p m t te a ul is r he plt e m te a s 6. Adm p a ha n d sic f th e o 4 of respondent No.1, the complainant has filed 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 filed on 9-4-2008, is within limitation. Thus, the present complaint is within limitation. . As regards the question of part payment, admittedly the accused persons have not discharged the liability, but they have partially discharged their liability, therefore, the present complaint is maintainable under the law for the remaining liability. ' .1Consequently, the complaint filed on behalf of respondent No.1 is _ maintainable under the law and no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners in the present case. The Apex Court has referred the case of l Aneeta (supra) to larger Bench on the point that whether the complaint is maintainable against the Directors without impleading the Company as accused. ln the present case, the complainant has made the Company I as 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 a hereby dismissed. 10.Consequently. ‘ l.A.No.1 stands disposed of. e e’sdl M’Mgwssf r; « T. P- Sharmai if ‘ ‘ Judge/x”,