Allowed

Pooja Ghai v. M/S Preview Fashions & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Nov 2012CRM-M/11048/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought quashing of prosecution for cheque dishonour under Section 138 NI Act. The court held that since she resigned before cheque issuance and did not sign the instrument, proceedings against her were an abuse of process and were quashed.

What did the court decide?

Quashed criminal complaint No.316/2 dated 9.8.2010 under Section 138 NI Act, summoning order, and subsequent proceedings against the petitioner.

Pooja Ghai Vs M/S Preview Fashions & Ors. — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl.Misc.No.M- 11048 of 2011 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

Crl.Misc.No.M- 11048 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.11.2012

¶5

Pooja Ghai ......Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s Preview Fashions and another .......Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶9

Present: Mr.Alok Jagga, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr.Sandeep K.Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

¶11

¶12

SABINA, J.

¶13

This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of criminal complaint No.316/2 dated 9.8.2010 (Annexure P-3) under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act for short); summoning order dated 9.8.2010 (Annexure P-8) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had neither signed the cheque nor was the director of the company at the time of issuance of the cheque in question. Petitioner had resigned from the company on 30.11.2009 and in her place Balwant Rai Bhalla had been appointed as Additional Director

¶15

¶16

Crl.Misc.No.M- 11048 of 2011 (O&M)

¶17

of the company. Hence, the complaint in question qua the petitioner was liable to be quashed.

¶18

Learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that the petitioner was also liable to face the trial along with her other co-accused.

¶19

So far as respondent No.2 is concerned, it is the coaccused of the petitioner.

¶20

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

¶21

Complainant has filed the complaint in question against the petitioner and respondent No.2 qua dishonour of cheque in question. Admittedly, the cheque in question is not signed by the petitioner but is signed by Vijay Kumar. A perusal of the copy of the form No.32 placed on record reveals that the petitioner had ceased to be director of the company on account of submission of her resignation w.e.f. 30.11.2009. Balwant Rai Bhalla was appointed as Additional Director of the company w.e.f. 30.11.2009. Petitioner had submitted her resignation on 21.11.2009 from directorship requesting therein that she would be unable to continue as a director of the company w.e.f. 1.12.2009 due to certain inevitable reasons and requested that her resignation from directorship be accepted. The resolution was passed by the Board of the company on 30.11.2009 and the resignation submitted by the petitioner from directorship of the company was accepted w.e.f. 30.11.2009. Number of cheques had been issued by the company in favour of the complainant from 8.12.2009 onwards. Since the said cheques were dishonoured,

¶22

¶23

Crl.Misc.No.M- 11048 of 2011 (O&M)

¶24

various complaints have been filed by the complainant against the company and its directors.

¶25

Since the petitioner has neither signed the cheque in question nor was the director of the company at the time of issuance of the cheque in question, continuation of criminal proceedings with regard to dishonour of the cheque in question against her would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.

¶26

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Criminal complaint No.316/2 dated 9.8.2010 (Annexure P-3) under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Act; summoning order dated 9.8.2010 (Annexure P-8) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioner.

¶27

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶28

November 22, 2012 anita

Pooja Ghai v. M/S Preview Fashions & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pooja Ghai v. M/S Preview Fashions & Ors.

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

Shivraj Singh Vs Jaskaran and Another

Bal Krishan @ Dimpy Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Sumesh Kumar and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Bhagat Singh Vs Satender Kumar

Ajay Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Pooja Ghai Vs M/S Ganga Knit Ltd. and Ors.