JUDGMENT : (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.) : 1. Present bunch of applications filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are arising out of commercial transaction between parties, wherein number of cheques allegedly issued in favour of Complainant by applicant Company were got dishonoured and the Complainant has initiated separate proceedings under the provisions of Section 138 of Negotiation Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “NI Act”). 2. Legal and factual issue involved in all cases are common, therefore, all the applications are being decided by this common judgment. Factual Matrix 3. In order to appreciate factual and legal issue involved in present cases, it would be relevant to reproduce relevant documents annexed in leading matter being Application under Section 482 No. 617 of 2020 as under: A. Complainant has filed a complaint under Sections 138, 141 and 142 of NI Act and the same in its entirety is reproduced hereinafter: B. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur vide impugned order dated 13.08.2012 summoned applicants No. 2 to 5, (the Company, i.e., Applicant No. 1 was not summoned since it was not arrayed as an accused) to face trial and said order is reproduced hereinafter: C. Applicants No. 4 and 5 being aggrieved by above order, have filed a criminal revision, which was allowed by order dated 18.06.2013 and matter was remitted back to Trial Court to pass a fresh order taking note of Aneeta Hada Vs. M/S Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd. 2012(5) SCC 661 . Relevant part of order is mentioned hereinafter: D. The Complainant in order to fill up a legal lacuna, filed an impleadment application to implead applicant No. 1 i.e. M/S Kitply Industries, to which objections were also filed, though after remand the applicants have no lis before Trial Court. On remand, Trial Court passed a fresh impugned summoning order dated 03.09.2015 and for reference relevant part of order is mentioned hereinafter: E. Aforesaid order was again challenged before Revisional Court at the behest of all applicants, however, the same was dismissed vide impugned order dated 15.05.2019 and relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter: 4. Above referred both orders are impugned in first application and similar impugned orders are challenged in respective applications. 5. Undisputed facts (i) All cheques in question were issued by authorised signatories of applicant-company, M/s Kitply Industries Ltd. in favour of complainant towards commercial transactions between parties. Above referred both orders are impugned in first application and similar impugned orders are challenged in respective applications. 5. Undisputed facts (i) All cheques in question were issued by authorised signatories of applicant-company, M/s Kitply Industries Ltd. in favour of complainant towards commercial transactions between parties. (ii) All cheques in question were got dishonoured on ground of “insufficient balance”. (iii) Statuary notice was issued to applicants No. 2 to 5 but not to the Company, the principal offender. A complaint was filed only against applicants No. 2 to 5 under Sections 138, 141, 142 of NI Act disclosing that all proposed accused worked for the Company. (iv) The applicants No. 2 to 5 were summoned but it was challenged and Revisional Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration in view of judgment passed by Supreme Court in Aneeta Hada (supra). This order was not challenged at behest of either party. (v) At this stage an application for impleadment of Company was filed to which objections were also filed. Though there was no specific order passed on it, however, it was taken note in impugned summoning order as well as objection to it was also taken note of. (vi) On remand for fresh order all applicants including the Company were also summoned and challenge to it before the Revisional Court remained unsuccessful. 6. Submission on behalf of Applicants (i) The complaint as filed by complainant under N.I. Act was not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary party i.e. the Company, being principal offender as contemplated in Aneeta Hada (supra). (ii) The application filed at this stage of remand to implead the Company was not maintainable as well as the application was neither considered nor allowed nor rejected. (iii) On remand, the summoning order was passed taking an analogy of State case, whereas present is a proceedings arising out of complaint case. The Trial Court has committed a legal error by summoning the Company as well as other applicants. The said legal error was not cured by the Revisional Court as such it was perpetuated further. (iii) On remand, the summoning order was passed taking an analogy of State case, whereas present is a proceedings arising out of complaint case. The Trial Court has committed a legal error by summoning the Company as well as other applicants. The said legal error was not cured by the Revisional Court as such it was perpetuated further. (iv) The Revisional Court vide it's order dated 18.06.2013 has remanded the matter which was patently illegal and should have quashed the proceedings in view of fact that Supreme Court only declares the law and the maxim ignorantia juris non excusat, a settled principle of law and therefore it could not be said that Trial Court was not aware of law pronounced by Supreme Court. (v) Drawing analogy from provisions of Cr.P.C. for summoning accused is patently illegal in view of fact that NI Act is a complete code in itself and therefore provisions of Cr.P.C. are not applicable as has been held by Supreme Court, in N. Harihara Krishnan Vs. J Thomas, 2018 (13) SCC 663 . (vi) The impleadment application was not accompanied by any delay condonation application and since the complaint was filed on 20.06.2012, while impleadment application was filed on 16.01.2015, i.e. after a delay of approximately 2 ½ years, the same could not have been allowed since the same was much beyond mandatory timelines given under Section 138 of N.I Act. Reference was made to a judgement of Supreme Court in Himanshu vs B. Shivamurthy and another, 2019 (3) SCC 797 . (vii) A bare perusal of complaint would also demonstrate that no specific role was assigned to accused and therefore in view of law declared by Supreme Court, the applicants could not have been summoned. Reference was made to the judgements passed by Supreme Court in Sunita Palita vs M/S. Panchami Stone Quarry: (2022)10 SCC 152 , Siby Thomas Vs. M/s. Somany Ceramics Ltd: (2024)1 SCC 348 and Dilip Hiraramani vs Bank Of Baroda: (2019)3 SCC 797 . (viii) It was further submitted that without arraying Company as an accused on whose behalf cheques were issued, complaint would not be maintainable, reference was made to a three Judges judgement of Supreme Court in Aneeta Hada (supra), which has consistently been followed till date. Reference was also made to Dilip Hiraramani (supra) and Himanshu (supra). 7. (viii) It was further submitted that without arraying Company as an accused on whose behalf cheques were issued, complaint would not be maintainable, reference was made to a three Judges judgement of Supreme Court in Aneeta Hada (supra), which has consistently been followed till date. Reference was also made to Dilip Hiraramani (supra) and Himanshu (supra). 7. Submissions on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2/Complainant (i) It is a specific case of Complainant that all applicants even worked at accused Company at relevant time and were equally responsible for dishonoured cheques. (ii) A Legal lacuna for not impleading Company was cured as admittedly an application for impleadment was filed after matter was remanded for fresh order subsequent to Aneeta Hada (supra). Objection to it was also filed. (iii) The Trial Court as well as Revisional Court has considered factum of impleadment application as such formal order on application was not required (application was neither allowed nor rejected). (iv) The proposition of law that unless the company is made accused, its Directors/Officers cannot be prosecuted is premised on the concept of law that unless the finding of guilt is recorded against the company its Directors/Officers cannot be punished vicariously but this proposition of law has an exception that where there is a legal bar for proceeding against the company due to operation of certain other laws, or that the company is legally disable from being prosecuted then in such case the director or the officers of the company can be prosecuted independently without the company being impleaded as accused (ref: Ajay Kumar Radheshyam Goenka Vs Tourism Finance Corpn. of India Ltd, (2023) 10 SCC 545 ). So where from their own pleadings in the instant application, the applicants had stated about the company being under the process of IBC, no prejudice is likely to be caused to Directors/Officers especially those who have signed the cheques (Applicant Nos. 3 & 4) if they are prosecuted because they can independently establish their defense in trial in terms of Section141 (2) NI Act. (v) The accused-applicants were first summoned vide order dated 21.9.2012 passed by the Magistrate. They had challenged it on all these grounds before Lower Revisional Court, which vide its order dated 18.06.2013 had then remanded the case to Magistrate for passing fresh order of summoning and no further challenge was made by them to such revisional order before this Court. (v) The accused-applicants were first summoned vide order dated 21.9.2012 passed by the Magistrate. They had challenged it on all these grounds before Lower Revisional Court, which vide its order dated 18.06.2013 had then remanded the case to Magistrate for passing fresh order of summoning and no further challenge was made by them to such revisional order before this Court. It is thereafter that during proceedings before the Magistrate that Complainant had sought amendment in complaint seeking impleadment of Company as accused, which stands allowed impliedly when Magistrate vide his fresh order of summoning had summoned Company also on premise that cognizance is taken of offence and there is no legal bar in then summoning those who appears to be the offenders even if they were not arrayed in the title of complaint by complainant. Recourse to such amendments in complaint, which causes no prejudice to accused is legally permissible and which position of law has been exhaustively dealt with by this Court in the case of M/s Narender Kumar @ Brothers vs State of UP & others, 2022:AHC:211261, which is relied upon by complainant in toto. (vi) The Director or officer of the Company who had signed the cheque can be prosecuted without making any averment in the complaint to effect that they were in charge of, or responsible to Company for conduct of its business hence impugned complaint qua Applicant Nos. 3 & 4 survives since they were the joint signatories of the cheque. (Ref. Sunita Palita vs Panchami Stone Quarry, (2022) 10 SCC 152 ). 8. Heard learned counsel for rival parties, perused the record as well as written submissions filed by both parties. 9. Discussion and Conclusion (i) In above referred undisputed facts, now the applicants have no legal right to challenge the order whereby Revisional Court has remanded the case for fresh consideration in view of Aneeta Hada (supra). There was no legal requirement that applicants (proposed accused) be heard at the stage of summoning even though matter was remanded to Trial Court for this purpose. The objections filed by applicants to impleadment application was not required to be taken note of. (ii) The first issue for consideration is whether on remand the Trial Court has to pass an order only in view of Aneeta Hada (supra) without consideration of impleadment application or not. The objections filed by applicants to impleadment application was not required to be taken note of. (ii) The first issue for consideration is whether on remand the Trial Court has to pass an order only in view of Aneeta Hada (supra) without consideration of impleadment application or not. If the answer would be affirmative then in strict view of Aneeta Hada (supra), since principal offender i.e. Company was not arrayed as an accused therefore, no criminal proceeding could be initiated under NI Act against applicants No. 2 to 5. However, if the answer would be negative then, the Court will consider whether application for impleadment was considered and allowed or contents of impugned order do indicate that it was allowed as well as whether pleadings are to the effect that Company and applicants have committed prima-facie offence under NI Act. (iii) The Revisonal Court while remitting the case has neither put any caveat nor restricted the Trial Court to consider impleadment application in accordance with law, if so filed. It is important to note here that none of applicants have challenged the order passed by Revisional Court whereby matter was remitted for fresh consideration. (iv) In regard to amendment in a complaint, few paragraphs of M/s Narender Kumar @ Brothers (supra), a judgement passed by this Court and relied upon by complainant would be relevant where this issue was considered in detail:- “9. The first issue before this Court is whether amendment in a complaint was legally permissible? 10. In this regard rival parties have placed reliance on S.R.Sukumar (Supra). 11. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that amendment which could cause prejudice to accused, such cannot be allowed. Contrary, according to counsel for complainant no prejudice was caused. 12. Before considering rival submissions, relevant paragraphs no.18 and 19 of S.R.Sukumar (supra) would be relevant to mention hereinafter: "18. Insofar as merits of the contention regarding allowing of amendment application, it is true that there is no specific provision in the Code to amend either a complaint or a petition filed under the provisions of the Code, but the Courts have held that the petitions seeking such amendment to correct curable infirmities can be allowed even in respect of complaints. In Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board vs. Modi Distillery And Ors., (1987) 3 SCC 684 , wherein the name of the company was wrongly mentioned in the complaint that is, instead of Modi Industries Ltd. the name of the company was mentioned as Modi Distillery and the name was sought to be amended. In such factual background, this Court has held as follows:- "...The learned Single Judge has focussed his attention only on the technical flaw in the complaint and has failed to comprehend that the flaw had occurred due to the recalcitrant attitude of Modi Distillery and furthermore the infirmity is one which could be easily removed by having the matter remitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate with a direction to call upon the appellant to make the formal amendments to the averments contained in para 2 of the complaint so as to make the controlling company of the industrial unit figure as the concerned accused in the complaint. All that has to be done is the making of a formal application for amendment by the appellant for leave to amend by substituting the name of Modi Industries Limited, the company owning the industrial unit, in place of Modi Distillery.... Furthermore, the legal infirmity is of such a nature which could be easily cured…" 19. What is discernible from the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board's case is that easily curable legal infirmity could be cured by means of a formal application for amendment. If the amendment sought to be made relates to a simple infirmity which is curable by means of a formal amendment and by allowing such amendment, no prejudice could be caused to the other side, notwithstanding the fact that there is no enabling provision in the Code for entertaining such amendment, the Court may permit such an amendment to be made. On the contrary, if the amendment sought to be made in the complaint does not relate either to a curable infirmity or the same cannot be corrected by a formal amendment or if there is likelihood of prejudice to the other side, then the Court shall not allow such amendment in the complaint." 13. xxxxx 14. xxxxx 15. xxxxx 16. On the contrary, if the amendment sought to be made in the complaint does not relate either to a curable infirmity or the same cannot be corrected by a formal amendment or if there is likelihood of prejudice to the other side, then the Court shall not allow such amendment in the complaint." 13. xxxxx 14. xxxxx 15. xxxxx 16. In S.R. Sukumar (supra), Supreme Court has reproduced part of Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control, Board (supra) wherein amendment of details of the company was allowed and it was held that Court may permit an amendment which are formal in nature though a caveat was put that in event of likelihood of prejudice to the other side, such amendment may not be allowed.” (v) To further consider the rival submissions on issue, I have carefully perused the complaint where it was specifically stated that opposite party (the Company) has issued cheques in pursuance of commercial transactions, which got dishonoured and named accused were employees of the Company and were equally responsible for dishonour, as such prima-facie allegations against the Company, being principal offender, was part of proceeding since inception and are sufficient to summon the Company also being principal offender as well as other applicants including signatories to the cheques. The Trial Court has not committed any legal error by considering an application for impleadment. (vi) Now the Court has to consider effect of a fact that application for impleadment was neither allowed nor rejected, though from the contents of impugned order, Trial Court was apparently considering the said application only as it would be evident from first Para of impugned order and for reference said paragraph is again reproduced hereinafter:- (viii) As referred above, the Trial Court was in fact considered the application for impleadment only but while considering the issue, it lost track and dealt the issue on different analogy i.e. power of Magistrate to summon even an accused not named in charge-sheet if so warrant, however, a fact that present case was arising out of a complaint case under a Special Act was completely ignored. Therefore, reason and analogy for allowing impugned order has a legal error and impugned order in its present form could not legally survive. Therefore, reason and analogy for allowing impugned order has a legal error and impugned order in its present form could not legally survive. (ix) The impugned order has two errors, first impleadment application was not finally decided and secondly, reason assigned to summon applicants suffered with a legal error, however, for both errors, the complainant could not be penalized since he has done everything to summon applicants including the Company by way of filing an impleadment application. (x) The judgments relied upon by applicants i.e. N. Harihara Krishnan (supra); Himanshu (supra); Sinuta Palita (supra); Siby Thomas (supra) and Dilip Hiraramani (supra) are on the point that if Company was not convicted, their Director would also not be convicted either, or vicarious liability would also not fall on nonexecutive Directors or on summon under Section 319 Cr.P.C. No judgment on issue whether amendment could not be allowed is being placed on record. Proceedings still have not reached upto a stage, where other cited judgements would have application. (xi) The law in regard to amendment in a complaint is being referred in Narender Kumar @ Brothers (supra). The Trial Court has adopted a wrong approach to consider the case and in interest of justice such approach could not prejudice the complainant’s case. In first round Revisional Court has remitted the case for fresh consideration, where impleadment application was filed in view of Aneeta Hada (supra) therefore, it was maintainable, however, as discussed above said application was not decided on merit. (xii) Therefore, this Court is of considered opinion that impugned order in its present form does not survive. 10. In view of above, impugned summoning orders in all these applications are set aside and matter is remitted back to Trial Court concerned to decide the impleadment applications in accordance with law after hearing complainant only as well as taking note of above referred judgments. Applicants are not required to be heard at this stage. The proceedings shall be concluded within two months from today, if there is no legal impediment. 11. The applications are accordingly disposed of. 12. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.