Crl.M.C. No.995/2011 Page 1 of 7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Delivered on : August 3rd 2011 + CRL.M.C. 995/2011 RANA GURJEET SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Abhinav Vashist, Sr. Adv with Mr.B.S. Shukla & Ms.Misha Rohatgi, Advs. versus SUNRISE PAPERS ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Mala Goel, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes. SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) 1. Vide this petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, petitioner has challenged the complaint case under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the „NI Act‟) bearing No.PP-1929/03 titled as „M/s.Sunrise vs. M/s.Rana Mohendra Papers Ltd Ors‟ filed by the respondent against six respondents/ accused and the petitioner was impleaded as respondent/accused No.4 in Crl.M.C. No.995/2011 Page 2 of 7 the said complaint. Admittedly, the complaint case was filed in the year 2003. 2. Mr.Abhinav Vashist, Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that on 01.10.2002, petitioner has resigned as director from the company. The petitioner has filed the certified copy issued by the Registrar of Companies under Form No.32, Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner has also filed the copy of the resignation letter dated 01.10.2002 to be accepted with immediate effect and was submitted before the Registrar of Companies on the same date. 3. Learned Senior Advocate, further submits that in the complaint there is no allegation against the petitioner, therefore, the trial court has wrongly summoned and the proceedings are pending before the trial Court against the petitioner. 4. Further submits that, as the petitioner has resigned on 01.10.2002 and the cheque in question was issued, thereafter on 18.11.2002, and the complaint case under NI Act was filed way back in the year 2003. Crl.M.C. No.995/2011 Page 3 of 7 5. Ms.Mala Goel, learned counsel for respondent submits that the petitioner is the relative of other co-accused, therefore, he must come with clean hands to the Court and should come forward to disclose the address of the rest of the respondents/accused in the complaint case. 6. Further submits that, till date notice of the complaint case could not be served due to non-availability of addresses of the other respondents/accused and they are intentionally avoiding the service and till date they have not joined the proceedings in the said complaint case. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ishan Systems Pvt Ltd & Ors Vs. Vijay Bank : 177 (2011) DLT 589, wherein proceedings under Section 138 NI Act were refused to be quashed against the applicant and it was observed that the defence taken by the petitioner is to be taken before the learned Trial Judge, therefore, in the aforesaid judgment, the petition of the petitioner was dismissed. Crl.M.C. No.995/2011 Page 4 of 7 8. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the case Harshendra Kumar D Vs. Rebatilata Koley & Ors : (2011) 3 SCC 351 wherein the Supreme Court has dealt with the same issue as under:- “27. As noticed above, the appellant resigned from the post of Director on 02.03.2004. The dishonoured cheques were issued by the company on 30.04.2004, i.e. much after the appellant had resigned from the post of Director of the company. The acceptance of the appellant‟s resignation is duly reflected in the Resolution dated 02.03.2004. Then in the prescribed form (Form 32), the company informed to the Registrar of Companies on 04.03.2004 about the appellant‟s resignation. It is not even the case of the complainants that the dishonoured cheques were issued by the appellant. These facts leave no manner of doubt that on the date of the offence was committed by the company, the appellant was not the Director; he had nothing to do with the affairs of the company. In this view of the matter, if the criminal complaints are allowed to proceed against the appellant, it would result in gross injustice to the Crl.M.C. No.995/2011 Page 5 of 7 appellant and tantamount to an abuse of process of the Court.” 9. As per the aforesaid judgment, in that case also the appellant was not the director and he had nothing to do with the affairs of the company and the Supreme Court find that it would be gross injustice to the appellant and tantamount to abuse of process of the Court. Thus, the complaint against the appellant was quashed. 10. I made it clear that in the case of Ishan Systems (supra) the admitted case of the petitioner was that the petitioner had taken the loan from the respondent bank and the cheques in question issued by the petitioner were presented by the respondent and dishonoured, but since the respondent bank had invoked the provisions of Securitisation Act, complaint case u/s 138 NI Act would not be maintainable. 11. However, in the instant case, the petitioner neither has issued the cheque, nor was the director as on the date of the issuance of the cheque, therefore, this case Ishan Systems Crl.M.C. No.995/2011 Page 6 of 7 (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for respondent, is not applicable to the present case in the facts and circumstance. 12. In the instant case, the petitioner is no more director at the time of issuance of the cheque, therefore, he could not be held liable for the misdeeds committed by the company and its directors. 13. Keeping the aforesaid discussion into view, the complaint case under Section 138 NI Act bearing CC No.PP- 1929/03 titled as ‘M/s.Sunrise vs. M/s.Rana Mohendra Papers Ltd Ors’ is quashed qua the petitioner, who is respondent/ accused No.4 in the said complaint filed by the respondent herein. 14. Before parting this order, learned counsel for respondent submits that under Section 482 Cr. P. C. High Court has wide powers even to compel any person to disclose the antecedents of someone. Further she submits that, though the complaint is quashed against the petitioner, but rest of the respondents who have still not joined the proceedings of complaint case before Trial Court are the related to each other Crl.M.C. No.995/2011 Page 7 of 7 and petitioner herein can be asked to furnish the addresses of the remaining respondents/accused persons. 15. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that due to misunderstanding respondent/accused persons departed with each other in different companies and his client is not on talking terms at all and does not have any addresses of the other accused persons. 16. Under these circumstances, Court has no other option, but to turn down the request of learned counsel for respondent. 17. Criminal M.C. No.995/2011 stands allowed. Crl.M.A.No.3724/2011 (stay) 18. In view of above, this application becomes infructuous and stands disposed of accordingly. SURESH KAIT, J August 03rd 2011 Mk