Allowed

Kamal Singh Sokhi v. Kirloskar Investment and Finance Limited and Anr.

Bombay HC11 Aug 2008APPLN/3134/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, allowed the criminal application seeking to quash the process issued against the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court held that the complaint failed to make out the ingredients of Section 141 to establish liability against the director. Due to nearly ten years of pendency, the court quashed the order ins

What did the court decide?

Rule is made absolute quashing the order issued against the applicant.

Kamal Singh Sokhi Vs Kirloskar Investment and Finance… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3134 OF 1998.

Kamal Singh Sokhi.

..Applicant.

versus

Kirloskar Investment & Finance Ltd. & Anr.

¶6

..Respondents.

¶7

Mr. Subhash Jha, for the Applicant. Mr. J.P.Yagnik, APP, for the Respondent - State. None present for the Respondent No.1.

¶8

CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. DATE : 11TH AUGUST,2008.

¶9

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶10

1.	Heard	the learned Cou	nsel appearing	for the
Applicant.	The	Applicant	has	been	arra	igned as
Accused	No.4 in	a	complaint	filed	by	the first
Respondent	under	section	138	of	the	Negotiable
Instruments	Act,	1881.	Process	was	issued	against

¶11

the Applicant and other accused. The prayer in this

¶12

Petition is for quashing the order issuing process.

¶13

2.	In a	normal course	, this	Court	would	have
relegated	the	Applicant	to	the	rem	edy	of		filing	a
Revision	Application	under	Secti	on	397	of		the	Code	of

¶14

¶15

Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, in this Application, rule has been issued on 14th October 1998 and since then the Application has been pending in this Court. Therefore, it will be unjust to the

¶16

parties to relegate them to another remedy after

¶17

lapse of nearly ten years.

¶18

The learned Counsel appearing for the

¶19

Applicant has taken me through the relevant averments made in the complaint filed by the first Respondent. He pointed out that on the basis of the averments made in the complaint which are very vague, section 141 of the said Act, 1881 could not have been

¶20

invoked. None appears for the first Respondent

¶21

though the notice is served.

¶22

filed by the first Respondent are in paragraph nos.

¶23

2 and 3 thereof which reads thus :-

¶24

"2. That accused No.1 is a Public Limited

¶25

Company, registered under the Companies Act,

¶26

¶27

1956, and accused No.2 is Chairman and Managing Director, accused No.3 and 4 are the Directors of the said Public Limited Company.

¶28

Accused’s are carrying on the business at the address mentioned hereinabove.

¶29

	3.		That	during	the	course	of the	b	usiness
	accused	No.2	to	4 on	beha	lf of	accused		No.1
	approached		the	compla	inant	and	reques	ted	the
	complainant	t	o	advance	an	amount	, for		their
	business	by		way	of		lease	fi	nance."
Apart	from the	fact	that	the	first	Resp	ondent	has	not
averred	that on	the	day	of	commis	sion	of offe	nce,	the
Applicant	who is	stated	to	be	a	Director	of	the	first
Accused-	Company	was	in-	charge	of	and	was	resp	onsible
for	the conduct	of	the	business	of	the	Company,		the

¶30

role allegedly played by the Applicant has not been

¶31

set out in the complaint.

¶32

5.	The	drawer of the ch	eque is admittedly	the
first	Accused-	Company.	Process	could	have	been
issued	against	the	Applicant,	provided		necessary

¶33

¶34

ingredients of Section 141 of the said Act of 1881

¶35

were made out in the complaint by the original

¶36

Complainant.

¶37

6. In the circumstances, the Application must

¶38

succeed. I pass the following order :-

¶39

(1) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶40

[ A.S.OKA, J.]

Kamal Singh Sokhi v. Kirloskar Investment and Finance Limited and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Singh Sokhi v. Kirloskar Investment and Finance Limited and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Waman Hari Patil Vs Special Land Acquistion Officer

Devyani H.Dave Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anil C. Divate Vs Karuna Raman Patel and Ors.

Shri Subhash Hastimal Lodha . Vs Union of India .

M/S. Incorporated Daub Verhoeven Ltd. and Ors. Vs Abdul Rashid Adam and Anr.

Master Computech Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.