Dismissed

M/S Ascent Development Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Nov 2024A482/25763/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application under Section 482 of CrPC, the High Court considered the quashing of summons under the Negotiable Instruments Act due to alleged improper impleadment of directors and time-barred proceedings. The Court held that impleading a company through its director is not an illegality and the complaint was filed within time. The application was dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S Ascent Development Private Limited vs State of U.P… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:174493

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25763 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- M/S Ascent Development Private Limited Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhai Kumar Singh,Awadhesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Abhai Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev Kr. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceeding including the summoning order dated 7.4.2021 passed in Complaint Case No. 2075 of 2020 ( M/s Krishna Trading Company vs. M/s Ascent Development Private Ltd. ), under Section138/141 of N.I. Act, P.S. Sihanigate, District Ghaziabad.

¶8

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the cheque in question was issued on behalf of the company M/s Ascent Development Private Ltd. but in the complaint, aforesaid company was impleaded through its Director Suresh Gogia, though he has no concern with issuance of cheque, therefore, the impugned complaint is bad in the eyes of law. Second contention of counsel for the applicant is that the demand notice on bouncing of the cheque in question was sent on 25.9.2019 and as per the complaint that was served upon the applicant on 26.9.2019. Therefore, the complaint is time barred as the period of 30 days regarding service of notice shall be counted from the date of dispatch of notice i.e. 25.9.2019.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that Suresh Gogia, was not impleaded in the complaint in his personal capacity but the company was impleaded through him because he was the director of the company. It is further submitted by learned A.G.A. that as per the complaint, notice was served on 26.9.2019, therefore, after expiry of 15 days the complaint could be filed within a period of 30 days. Therefore, the complaint is not time barred.

¶10

Considering the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the cheque was issued on behalf of M/s Ascent Development Private Ltd. which is a company and in the complaint itself company was impleaded

¶11

as party through its director Suresh Gogia and its director was not impleaded in his personal capacity. This Court in the case of M/s Parthas Textile and another vs. State of U.P. and another; Application u/s 482 No. 11672 of 2024 , observed that when the notice is to be issued to a company under the N.I. Act, then it should be sent through Principal Officer or Director. Therefore, there is no illegality in the complaint as well as summoning order because the company was summoned through its director and the director was not summoned in his personal capacity.

¶12

So far as the second contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the complaint is time barred is concerned, the same is also incorrect because in the complaint itself it is mentioned that the notice, sent through the registered post on 25.9.2019, was served upon the applicant company on 26.9.2019. Therefore, after waiting for a period of 15 days the impugned complaint was filed on 25.10.2019 which is well within time. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned proceeding.

¶13

Accordingly, the application is dismissed .

¶14

Order Date :- 7.11.2024 Vandana

¶15

Digitally signed by :- VANDANA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

M/S Ascent Development Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/S Ascent Development Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harish Chandra vs State of Up Others

Abrar Alam vs State of U.P. and Another

Laxmi Narayan Dinkar vs State of U.P. and ANOther

Aseem Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. and Another

Sharafat Ali vs State of U.P. and Another

Kanvendra Singh vs State of U.P.