Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2098 (DEL)

JYOTI KHANNA v. STATE

2006-11-15

A.K.SIKRI

body2006
JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J.- These three petitions are filed by the petitioners against the same respondents/complainants and raise common question. Therefore, they are taken together and are being disposed of by this common judgment for the sake of convenience. The facts are stated. 2. M/s. Forech India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the company) was having business relations with M/s. Nirlon Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the complainant). The complainant had supplied the goods from time to time to the company. According to the complainant, liability of the company on this account was Rs. 17,75,626.32 paisa as on 1.11.99 and in partial discharge of the said liability two cheques dated 1.11.99 for Rs. 5 lacs each were given by the company to the complainant and both these cheques were drawn on Bank of Punjab Limited. However, on presentation of these cheques by the complainant, they were returned dishonoured by the bankers of the company with remarks "Payment stopped by the Drawer". The complainant sent notice of demand dated 15.11.99 to the company by Registered Post and as the payment was not made, the complainant filed the complaint under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After pre-summoning evidence was recorded, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate passed summoning order. In the complaint, apart from the company impleaded as accused No.1, five more persons have been arraigned as accused persons. These petitions are tiled by Mrs. Jyoti Khanna, accused No.4, Mr. H.C. Garg, accused No. Sand Dr. Suversha Khanna, accused No. 6 (although wrongly described as Dr. Suresh Khanna). Plea of all three petitioners is same, namely, they are wrongly impleaded parties as they were not incharge of and responsible for the day to day affairs of the company. 3. In paras Nos. 3 and 10 of the complaint, following averments are made qua these petitioners: "3. That the accused No. 1 M/s. Forech India Limited is a company and accused No. 2 Mr. Ravi Khanna is the Managing Director and accused No.3 Mr. Rahul Khanna, accused NO.4 Mrs. Jyoti Khanna, Accused No. S Mr. H.C. Garg and accused No.6 Mr. Suresh Khanna are the Directors of accused No. 1 and are responsible for the conduct and affairs of the business of the accused No.1. 10. That the accused No. 1 is the Company, accused No.2 the Managing Director and accused Nos. Rahul Khanna, accused NO.4 Mrs. Jyoti Khanna, Accused No. S Mr. H.C. Garg and accused No.6 Mr. Suresh Khanna are the Directors of accused No. 1 and are responsible for the conduct and affairs of the business of the accused No.1. 10. That the accused No. 1 is the Company, accused No.2 the Managing Director and accused Nos. 3 to 6 being the Directors of accused No. 1 and responsible for the conduct and affairs of the accused No. 1 in their day to day working through Board of Directors have thus committed offence punishable under Sections 138/141 of Negotiable Instruments Act." 4. In addition to aforesaid averments, the complainant has produced on record the certified copy of Form 32 to show that petitioners were Directors on the date when the cheques were dishonoured and notice of demand was issued. It is stated that they have been signing the Annual Returns of the company as authorised signatories and certified copies of Annual Returns are also produced. 5. In view of the aforesaid averments, coupled with evidence produced by the complainant, the onus would be on the petitioners to show that they were not the incharge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company and had nothing to do with the issuance of cheques in question which were dishonoured. The disputed questions, which are raised, can be gone into only at the stage of trial and it is not a case where Court can exercise its discretion. 6. These petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. Petitions dismissed.