THE HON’BLE SRI JUSICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.11376 of 2010 and CRIMINAL PETITION No.3145 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: These two petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Code), which can be disposed of by this common order, are filed for quashing the criminal case i.e. C.C.No.876 of 2007 on the file of the Court of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (trial court). The said case pertains to an offence of cheque bouncing punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short Act), and is filed by a concern called M/s.Karan Traders of Hyderabad (complainant). 2. In the above case A-1 is a company represented by its director Virsa Singh Sidhu, A-2 is Virsa Singh Sidhu himself, while A-3 and A-4 are one Ravinder Garg and another Ajay Garg who are also shown as directors. A-1 and A-3 filed Crl.P.No.3145 of 2011 and A-2 and A-4 filed Crl.P.No.11376 of 2010 for quashing the above case on various grounds. 3. The case of the complainant is that there were certain business dealings between it and A-1 company regarding certain milk powder and in that connection a sum of Rs.35,91,862/- became due to it from A-1 company and towards part discharge of that amount, A-1 company gave a cheque dated 27.02.2007 for Rs.10,00,000/- drawn on IDBI Bank, Panchkula, Haryana, and that when it presented the said cheque it was dishonoured and after issuing statutory notice it filed the present complaint/case as A-1 did not pay the amount. The complainant’s further plea is that A-2 to A-4 are directors of A-1 company and are in charge of its business and its affairs and therefore they are also liable. The other details are not necessary. 4. In Crl.P.No.3145 of 2011 which is filed by A-1 company, represented by A-2 Virsa Singh Sidhu, and A-3 Ravindar Kumar Garg, several pleas were raised regarding the amounts due to A-1 company from the complainant and that the cheque in question was not issued in connection with any subsisting liability and that in fact amounts were due only from the complainant to A-1 company and that the case is a false one. It is also stated that when A-1 company demanded the complainant to pay the amounts due to it the latter brought the case on false allegations. They also pleaded that they are ready even to deposit the cheque amount in the trial court to show their bona fides. It may be noted that all the above pleas raised in Crl.P.No.3145 of 2011 pertain to merits of the matter and defence of the petitioners therein and raise disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into under Section 482 of the Code. Hence it follows that the said criminal petition does not merit any acceptance. 5. Then coming to Crl.P.No.11376 of 2010 certain pleas are raised regarding the liability of the petitioners therein who are A-2 and A-4 and who are said to be directors of A-1 company. Before their pleas are considered, it must be mentioned here that in the complaint nothing is mentioned as to who actually signed and issued the cheque in question on behalf of A-1 company. However in the counter filed by the complainant in the said petition, it is stated that Ajay Kumar Garg who is described as A-4 Ajay Garg (one of the directors) has issued the cheque in question and this is not disputed. It is now well settled that when a cheque issued on behalf of a company is dishonoured, the company and its director who issued the cheque would be prima facie liable for prosecution whatever be the merits in the matter. Thus it follows that even Crl.P.No.11376 of 2010 is concerned which is filed by A-2 and A-4, it follows that the said petition has to be dismissed in respect of A-4 as he must be deemed to be in-charge of the business of the company by reason of issuing the cheque. 6. Now coming to A-2 Virsa Singh Sidhu in the criminal case, he is the first petitioner in Crl.P.No.11376 of 2010. It is stated in the complaint that he is also in-charge of the affairs of the company and therefore he is shown as the person representing the company. In fact in that capacity and as representing A-1 company, this Virsa Singh Sidhu filed the other Crl.P.No.3145 of 2011 contesting the case on merits seeking quashing of the case in that petition. In the said petition both Virsa Singh Sidhu and Ravindra Kumar Garg, to repeat, pleaded about the merits of A-1 company’s case and their contentions would show that this Virsa Singh Sidhu was aware of all the activities of the company and he was looking after its affairs. In other words, what should be noted is even if there are lapses in the averments in the complaint to show how this Virsa Singh Sidhu was responsible for the business of the company, those lapses or defects must be held to have been cured by the method and manner in which he contested the matter on merits in Crl.P.No.3145 of 2011. 7. It thus follows, in the above circumstances, that A-2 Virsa Singh Sidhu cannot be exonerated from the prosecution on the ground that no case is made out against him and he has to vindicate his stand only in the trial. In view of the above fact situation in this case, the decisions of the Supreme Court in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla[1] and Sabitha Ramamurthy v. R.B.S. Channabasavaradhya[2] which are relied upon by the petitioners and which lay down the proposition that when directors of a company are prosecuted for a cheque bouncing offence their role in the affairs of the company should be specifically stated in detail in order to bring them within the four corners of Section 141 of the Act cannot be made applicable to this case. Thus it follows that Crl.P.No.11376 of 2010 should fail even in respect of Sri Virsa Singh Sidhu. 8. That takes me to the plea of Ravindra Kumar Garg who is A- 3 and is the second petitioner in Crl.P.No.3145 of 2011 which has been filed on merits of the matter. He is also described as one of the directors of A-1 company. The question now is whether the case against him should be quashed on the ground that nothing is mentioned in the complaint in detail about his role in conducting the affairs of the business of A-1 company. It is true that complaint is silent on this aspect and does not give details of his role. It may however be noted that this A-3 Ravindra Kumar Garg did not join in Crl.P.No.11376 of 2010 which is filed by A-2 and A-4 for quashing the case against him on the above ground. This is the first minus point for him as no court can come to the rescue of a person who sleeps over his rights and as he did not seek quashing of the case on that ground this court cannot grant him that relief. 9. The question will however now arise whether the proposition laid down in the above two decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for accused can be applied to his case. Even on this aspect it may be noted that this A-3 Ravindra Kumar Garg is the second petitioner in Crl.P.No.3145 of 2011 which was filed for quashing the case on merits. Thus whatever that is applicable to the A-2 Virsa Singh Sidhu which has already been stated supra for having contested the Crl.P.No.3145 of 2011 which is on merits, it follows that the same must be made applicable to this petitioner Ravindra Kumar Garg also. In other words, his case stands on the same footing as does the case of Virsa Singh Sidhu. To sum up, both Virsa Singh Sidhu and Ravindra Kumar Garg by filing Crl.P.No.3145 of 2011 and contesting the matter for quashing the case on merits must be held to have cured all the defects in the complaint regarding their role as directors of A-1 company. It therefore follows that this Ravindra Kumar Garg also cannot succeed in these matters on the basis of the principle laid down in the above decisions. 10. Accordingly both the petitions are dismissed. _____________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR,J 28th July, 2011 CVRK [1] (2005) 8 SCC 89 [2] (2006) 10 SCC 581