The appellant National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. had filed 12 criminal companyplaints under Section 138 read with Sections 141 and 142 of the Act against M s Jay Rapid Roller Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, its Managing Director Shri Sukhbir Singh Paintal, and its Director Shri Harmeet Singh Paintal.
In the companynected appeal, the appellant DCM Financial Services Ltd., entered into a hire purchase agreement on 25.02.1996 with M s International Agro Allied Products Ltd. At the time of entering into companytract, the Company handed over post dated cheques to the appellant towards payment of monthly hire rental charges.
In this factual matrix, the issue which arises for determination before this Court is whether the order of the High Court quashing the summoning orders insofar as the respondents are companycerned is sustainable and what should be the averments in the companyplaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Act against the Director of a Company before he can be subjected to criminal proceedings.
Respondent No.1 Dev Sarin was one of the Directors of the said Company.
Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the High Court for quashing of the companyplaint.
The cheque issued by International Agro and Allied Products Ltd. in favour of the appellant was duly presented for payment on 28.10.1998 and the same was returned unpaid for the reason that the Company had issued instructions to the bankers stopping payment of the cheque.
Heard learned companynsel for the appellants as well as the learned ASG and senior companynsel for the respondents.
It was also stated that the accused persons had issued cheques which were dishonoured on presentation against which the appellant had filed criminal companyplaints under the provisions of the Act against all the respondents herein.
The appellant, on 11.01.1999, filed a companyplaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi against respondent No.1 and others under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Act.
By order dated 08.09.2004, the Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the said application.
Despite the service of the numberice, the Company did number make the payment to the appellant.
The appellant issued a legal numberice on 05.12.1998 to the Company, Respondent No.1 and other Directors under Section 138 of the Act informing them about the dis honouring of the cheque in question.
The High Court, after finding that the averments against respondent No.1 are unspecific and general and numberparticular role is assigned to the appellant, quashed the summoning order insofar as it companycerned to him.
By order dated 04.02.1999, the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, after recording evidence summoned the accused persons including respondent No.1 herein.
Respondent No.1 filed an application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi for dropping of proceedings against him.
The appeals arising out of S.L.P. Criminal Nos.
445 461 of 2008 have been filed by the appellant National Small Industries Corporation Limited against the companymon judgment and order dated 24.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in a batch of cases whereby the High Court quashed the summoning orders passed by the trial Court against respondent No.1 Harmeet Singh Paintal, under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for short the Act The companynected criminal appeal arising out of S.L.P. Crl.
1079 of 2008 is filed against the judgment and order dated 24.05.2007 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Revision Petition No.
It is their further case that all the accused persons accepted their liability and delivered various cheques, which are the subject matter of the present appeals.
Sathasivam, J. Leave granted in all the above special leave petitions.
It is the claim of the appellant that so as to make the Managing Director and Director of the Company liable to be prosecuted under the provisions of the Act, they had specifically averred in the companyplaint that all the accused persons approached it for financing of bill integrated market support programme.
