Dismissed

Garvit Innovative Promoters Limited (G.I.P.L.) v. Smt. Sushila Sharma Wife of Shri Lekhraj Sharma

Rajasthan HC10 Oct 2023CRLMP/892/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition challenging framing of charges under Section 138 NI Act dismissed as devoid of merit since director not named as accused individually. Court clarified company to propose new representative or accused co-owner shall represent.

What did the court decide?

Instant petition dismissed. Court directed filing of separate application to change representative if director is not named as accused.

Garvit Innovative Promoters Limited (G.I.P.L.) Vs Smt… — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:28435]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 892/2023

¶4

Garvit Innovative Promoters Limited (G.i.p.l.), Office Kotgaon, N.h.-991, Near Dadri Toll Booth, District Gautambuddh Nagar (U.p.) 291314 Through Its Director, Sanjay Bhati (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Central Jail Bharatpur)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Smt. Sushila Sharma Wife Of Shri Lekhraj Sharma, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of Sanjay Nagar, Bharatpur, Tehsil And District Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Ajay Sharma with Ms. Poonam Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Hardev Puri Goswami for Mr. Tripurari Sharma

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

¶11

Order

¶12

10/10/2023

¶13

The sole respondent-Smt. Sushila Sharma filed a criminal complaint against Karanpal Singh and petitioner-Garvit Innovative Promoters Limited through its Director Sanjay Bhati for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

¶14

The petitioner-company has challenged the order dated 23.06.2022 whereby, charges were ordered to be framed. The recitals in the petition reveals that Director Sanjay Bhati has claimed that impugned cheque was issued on 30.12.2019 whereas, he had already resigned from the company on 18.11.2018. Therefore, he was not at all responsible for the act of the company.

[2023:RJ-JP:28435]

[CRLMP-892/2023]

(2 of 2)

It is evident that Sanjay Bhati is not a petitioner herein nor named as accused in complaint petition in his individual capacity, rather only Garvit Innovative Promoters Limited is the petitioner and Sanjay Bhati is representing it as its Director. There is no dispute that the cheque was issued by the company-Garvit Innovative Promoters Limited, signed by authorised person coaccused Karanpal Singh.

¶19

Hence, prima-facie offence against the company is made out. Therefore, the instant petition stands dismissed as devoid of merit as Sanjay Bhati is not a petitioner herein.

¶20

However, it is made clear that if Sanjay Bhati files petition before the trial Judge making prayer that he is not named as accused in his individual capacity, the Court below shall consider feasibility of representation of the company through some other person, if the company proposes any name. In the event of company not proposing any name, the accused No.1-Karanpal Singh would be treated as representing the company.

¶21

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J

¶22

Ashish Kumar /939

Garvit Innovative Promoters Limited (G.I.P.L.) v. Smt. Sushila Sharma Wife of Shri Lekhraj Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Garvit Innovative Promoters Limited (G.I.P.L.) v. Smt. Sushila Sharma Wife of Shri Lekhraj Sharma

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

Manoj Kumar S/O Rajendra Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Sunita Wife of Rajendra Katoliya (Bhatte Wale) Vs Rafiq Ahamad Son of Rahimbux

Rizwana Begum Shaikh, W/O- Mukhtar Ali Dyer, Vs State of Rajasthan

Garvit Innovative Promoters Limited (G.I.P.L.) Vs Umesh Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Hari Shankar

Sohil S/O Shri Sahiram Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajesh Jain S/O Late Shri Prem Chand Jain Vs State of Rajasthan