Allowed

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

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Nov 2012CRM-M/15900/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings for cheque dishonour and cheating against the petitioner. The court held that since the petitioner neither signed the cheque nor served as the director during its issuance, prosecuting her would amount to an abuse of process of law.

What did the court decide?

Criminal complaint No.67/2 of 2012 under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and 420 IPC, summoning order dated 21.1.2012, and subsequent proceedings are quashed qua the petitioner.

Pooja Ghai Vs M/S Ganga Knit Ltd. and Ors. — Company and Corporate | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl.Misc.No.M- 15900 of 2012 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

Crl.Misc.No.M- 15900 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.11.2012

Puja Ghai

......Petitioner

Versus

M/s Ganga Knit Pvt. Ltd. and others .......Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶10

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

¶11

Mr.Vikas Mehsempuri, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

¶12

¶13

SABINA, J.

¶14

This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of criminal complaint No.67/2 dated 21.1.2012 (Annexure P-3) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act for short) read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short); summoning order dated 21.1.2012 (Annexure P-5) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

Crl.Misc.No.M- 15900 of 2012 (O&M)

¶18

place Balwant Rai Bhalla had been appointed as Additional Director of the company. Hence, the complaint in question qua the petitioner was liable to be quashed.

¶19

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.

¶20

So far as respondents No.2 to 5 are concerned, they are the co-accused of the petitioner.

¶21

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

¶22

Complainant has filed the complaint in question against the petitioner and respondents No.2 to 5 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

¶23

¶24

Crl.Misc.No.M- 15900 of 2012 (O&M)

¶25

8.12.2009 onwards. Since the said cheques were dishonoured, various complaints have been filed by the complainant against the company and its directors.

¶26

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.

¶27

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Criminal complaint No.67/2 dated 21.1.2012 (Annexure P-3) under Section 138 of the Act read with Section 420 IPC; summoning order dated 21.1.2012 (Annexure P-5) ) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioner.

¶28

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶29

November 22, 2012 anita

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pooja Ghai v. M/S Ganga Knit Ltd. and 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 Preview Fashions & Ors.