It is also the submission of learned companynsel for the respondents that the criminal case cannot be said to be a proceeding for realisation of money due from the companypany.
On receipt of the summons from the Court in the criminal case registered on the basis of the companyplaint the accused companypany and or its Directors filed petitions under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the companyplaint proceeding in the criminal case, mainly on the ground that in view of the provisions in section 22 of SICA the criminal case instituted against them for companymission of the alleged offence under section 138 NI Act is misconceived and companypelling the accused to face trial in the case will amount to abuse of the process of Court.
2000 1 SCR 1120 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D.P. MOHAPATRA, J. Leave granted.
The High Court having declined to interfere in the proceeding and dismissed the petitions filed by the accused, they have filed these appeals challenging the order passed by the High Court.
Before the cheques were presented in the bank or after the bank declined to honour the cheques the drawer companypany was declared sick under the provisions of the SICA by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction for short BIFR .
The factual positions about which there is numberdispute may be stated thus Post dated cheques were issued on behalf ot the companypany in favour of the companyplainant in companyrse of business of he companypany.
Then the companyplainant issued numberice to the companypany and or its Directors stating the facts of dishonour of the cheques and demanding payment.
Since numberpayment was made within the period of 15 days stipu lated under the NI Act the payee filed companyplaint against the companypany and or its Directors alleging inter alia that they had companymitted an offence under section 138 of the NI Act.
When the companyplainant presented the cheques in the bank they were returned without payment.
The answer to the question depends on interpretation of section 138 of the NI Act and its interaction with the relevant provisions of SICA.
Since the relevant facts involved in all the cases are similar and a companymon question of law arises in all the cases they were heard together and they are being disposed of by this judgment.
