1. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash the complaint, which is registered as Criminal Complaint No.3254 of 2000 in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.9, Ahmedabad (At Annexure-A to this application).
2. Mr. M.B. Gandhi, learned advocate for the applicants, argued that the allegations leveled in the complaint do not satisfy the ingredients of offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. He further argued that it is not correct that the allegation is that the work is not performed. He further pointed out that so far as applicant No.2 is concerned, Mr.Devamani, who is shown as Managing Director of the Meenu Garments Private Limited, in fact, he had resigned long back as Director of the Company. The learned advocate for the applicants has drawn attention of the Court to Page-52 of the compilation to point out that so far as the documents of company affairs are concerned, the Registrar of Companies (ROC) has already certified that applicant No.2 had already resigned as Director from the Company in the year 1999. He has also pointed out that applicant No.2 is also not the signatory to the cheques, and therefore, he further argued that so far as applicant No.2 is concerned, he was neither a Director of the company nor was he to do anything with the transactions in question. The cheques were alleged to have been given by the Company.
3. During the course of hearing, when the learned advocate for the complainant was confronted with, above said aspect in respect of applicant No.2 having resigned as Director of the Company, and the cheques were issued by the Company, he fairly stated that respondent No.1 would have no objection, if the complaint against applicant No.2 is quashed by this Court. He however, argued that so far as applicant Nos.1 and 3 are concerned, there are specific allegations in the complaint. He submitted that the averments made by the applicants in the application are matter of defence, to be taken by the applicants before the Lower Court. He further urged that this Court may not exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, so far as applicnat Nos.1 and 3 are concerned.
4. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.2-State, this Court is of the opinion that so far as applicant Nos.1 and 3 are concerned, there are specific allegations in the complaint in respect of role being played by applicant Nos.1 and 3 and all the contentions, which are raised on behalf of applicant Nos.1 and 3, are sort of defence to be raised before the Lower Court. Therefore, this application for applicant Nos.1 and 3 is not required to be accepted, as the contentions raised by them are sort of defence to be raised by them before the Lower Court. So far as applicant No.2 is concerned, as stated above, since there is no serious objection on the part of original-complainant to quash the complaint against applicant No.2, the application qua applicant No.2 is accepted to be allowed. The complaint, insofar as applicant No.2 is concerned, (at Annexure-A which is registered as Criminal Complaint No.3254 of 2000), is quashed. The application qua applicant Nos.1 and 3 is concerned, as stated above, the same is not required to be accepted. Accordingly, the same insofar as applicant Nos.1 and 3 are concerned, is hereby dismissed.
5. In view of the aforesaid, the present application is hereby allowed qua applicant No.2. Rule is made absolute qua applicant no.2.
So far as applicant Nos.1 and 3 are concerned, the application is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged qua applicant nos.1 and 3, interim relief stands vacated.
(C.L. Soni, J.) rakesh/