Naveen Agrawal Vs Saharash Tibrewal

NAVEEN AGRAWAL S/O VED PRAKASH SINGAL, AGED 52 YEARS, EX-DIRECTOR, M/S EMS TRAVEL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED NO.102, GROUND FLOOR, 9TH CROSS RAMAKRISHNA LAYOUT MARAGALA BENGALURU-560091. AND ALSO R/AT NO.A 315, SVS PALMS 2, CHINNAPPANAHALLI ROAD, DODDANEKUNDI EXTENSION, MARATHALLI, BENGALURU-560037 …PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI.TULSI.K.R, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶13

SAHARASH TIBREWAL PARTNER, M/S. COCOKOYLA CAPITAL HAVING ADDRESS AT UNIT 303 RENAISSANCE NATURE WALK KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD, KR PURAM BENGALURU-560036.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. DEVI PRASAD SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:26686 CRL.P No. 923 of 2023

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.3 IN C.C.NO.20518/2022 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.138 OF NI ACT 1881 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ACJM BENGALURU.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Petitioner, who is arraigned as accused No.3 has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him in C.C.No.20518/2022 on the file of ACJM, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act.

¶23

In support of the petition, petitioner has

¶24

contended that the order passed by the trial Court taking cognizance and issuing summons against the petitioner is contrary to the facts, law and material placed on record. Petitioner has not participated in the loan transaction. He has not affixed his signature to the cheque and he was not

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:26686 CRL.P No. 923 of 2023

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

managing the office of the company. Petitioner submitted resignation to the Directorship of the accused No.1 company on 29.03.2022 and it was accepted on 31.03.2022. Therefore, as on the date of alleged cause of action, he was no longer in the company and as such he is not liable. The continuation of criminal proceedings against him would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and hence, the petition.

¶28

On the other hand learned counsel representing the respondent/complainant submit that accused No.1 is a private limited company. Accused No.2 is the Managing Director and petitioner i.e., accused No.3 is the Director of accused No.1-company. They are in charge and responsible for the day-to-day conduct of business of the company. Complainant is the partner of M/s. Cocokoyla Capital partnership firm. When accused No.1 was in need of financial assistance, accused Nos.2 and 3 approached it and borrowed loan of ₹17 lakhs vide hand loan agreement dated 06.12.2021. Accused promised to repay the same

¶29

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:26686 CRL.P No. 923 of 2023

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

along with ₹2 lakhs towards compensation and issued 3 cheques dated 10.01.2022, 10.02.2022 and 10.03.2022. However, accused No.1 failed to repay the loan and when the cheques were presented, the first two cheques were returned dishonoured with endorsement 'out of date' and the third cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds.

¶32

3.1 He would further submit that similarly, as per the of Memorandum of understanding dated 06.12.2021, complainant provided six numbers of Tata electric cars to the accused on lease. However, the lease could not be continued and as per the memorandum of understanding accused agreed to pay ₹5 lakhs by way of settlement and issued three cheques dated 25.01.2022, 25.02.2022 and 25.03.2022 by way of security. Accused failed to pay the amount due and hence complainant presented the cheques. The first two cheques were returned dishonoured for reason 'out of date' and the third cheque was returned for want of sufficient funds.

¶33

5 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:26686 CRL.P No. 923 of 2023

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

3.2 After issuing legal notice and on the failure of

¶37

accused persons to send reply as well as to comply with the notice, complaint is filed. After recording the sworn statement of complainant, the trial Court has taken cognizance and issued summons to the accused and therefore all the accused are liable.

¶38

During the course of his arguments, learned counsel for complainant submitted that the petitioner has submitted resignation on 29.03.2024 and it was accepted on 30.03.2024 and as such, accused is also liable. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against him.

¶39

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶40

The complainant is prosecuting the petitioner on

¶41

the ground that he is one of the Directors of the accused No.1 company and was in charge and responsible for the

¶42

6 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:26686 CRL.P No. 923 of 2023

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

conduct of day-to-day business and management of the accused No.1- company.

¶46

Even though the petitioner has admitted that he was one of the Directors of accused No.1-company, he has disputed that he was signatory to the memorandum of understanding and that he was in charge and responsible for the day-to-day conduct of the business of accused No.1 company. On the other hand he has specifically claimed that he submitted his resignation on 29.03.2022 and it was accepted on 31.03.2022 and therefore, as on the date of presentation of the cheques, he was no longer in the company and as such is not liable. In order to evidence this fact, the petitioner has produced copy of email dated 29.03.2022 through which he has submitted his resignation to accused No.2. He has also produced the company master data, according to which the the last date, petitioner worked as the Director was on 31.03.2022. As per this, the petitioner was no longer director of the

¶47

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:26686 CRL.P No. 923 of 2023

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

company when the cheques were presented for

¶50

encashment.

¶51

Even though, during the course of arguments, learned counsell for complainant submitted that the petitioner submitted his resignation on 29.03.2024 and it was accepted on 30.3.2024. He has not produced any documents to evidence this fact. In the light of the copy of the email dated 29.03.2024, through which the petitioner submitted his resignation and the company master data according to which the date when petitioner last discharged his duties as Director is 31.03.2022, the claim of the petitioner that when the cheques were presented for encashment, he was no longer in the management of the accused No.1 company is to be accepted. Therefore, he cannot be held liable and continuation of the criminal proceeding against him amount to abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, the proceeding is required to be quashed

¶52

8 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:26686 CRL.P No. 923 of 2023

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

as against petitioner/accused No.3. In the result petitioner

¶56

succeeds and accordingly, the following:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

(i) Petition filed by the accused No.3 under Section 482 Cr.P.C is hereby allowed.

¶59

(ii) The criminal proceedings against petitioner/accused No.3 in C.C.No.20518/2022 on the file of ACJM Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act is quashed.

¶60

(iii) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial court through e-mail.

¶61

Sd/(J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE

¶62

RR

¶63

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51

Naveen Agrawal v. Saharash Tibrewal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naveen Agrawal v. Saharash Tibrewal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Chitti Babu Naidu Vs State of Karnataka

Mr a R Tanseer Hassain Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Srinivas C Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ravi S Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Lalithamma Vs Smt Rekha T M

M/S Techspan Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr Govinda Raju Narayan