IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA Crl.P. No. 6637/2016 BETWEEN :
Sri. Purushotham Bangalore Kalachari S/o. Kalachari Gangappachari Aged about 43 years R/a. No. 121, 11th Cross 6th A Main, 60 Feet Road, J.C. Nagar Bengaluru – 560 086. … PETITIONER (By Sri. A. Manjunath, Adv., for Sri. Rohith Gowda, Adv.) AND :
Sri. A.V. Balasubramanya S/o. A.S. Venkatasubbu R/a. Samartha Krupa No. 3372, 13th Cross 2nd Main, Shastrinagar Bengaluru – 560 028. … RESPONDENT (By Sri. K.V. Shiva Reddy, Adv., ABSENT) This Crl.P. is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the complaint against the petitioner who is arrayed as accused No. 4 in PCR No. 10181/2015 and etc.
This Crl.P. coming on for Admission this day, the Court passed the following;
O R D E R Petitioner has sought to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 24310/2015 pending on the file of XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
2. The aforesaid proceedings were initiated based on the complaint lodged by respondent herein under Section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 200 Cr.P.C. The petitioner herein was arrayed as accused No. 4. The substance of accusation is that the cheque issued by accused No. 1 company in favour of respondent/complainant was dishonoured for insufficient funds. The only ground on which the petitioner was implicated in the said offence was that he being the Director of accused No. 1 company was equally responsible for the offences committed by the company.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner herein ceased to be the Director of accused No.
1 company with effect from 31.12.2014. The cheque in question is alleged to have been issued on 24.02.2015 and was got dishonoured subsequent to the retirement of the petitioner and hence, the petitioner could not have been prosecuted for the alleged offence. In support of his argument learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Form No. 12 filed before the Registrar of Companies which discloses that the intimation of retirement given by the petitioner was accepted with effect from 31.12.2014.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 is absent and has not addressed any arguments. Respondent No. 2 has not filed any statement of objections opposing the assertions made by the petitioner in the petition that he has ceased to be the Director of accused No. 1 company with effect from 31.12.2014. As such the prosecution of the petitioner for the offences committed by accused No. 1 company is wholly illegal and cannot be sustained. That apart, there are no averments whatsoever in the entire complaint to indicate that the petitioner herein was incharge or responsible for the affairs of the accused No. 1 company at the time of commission of the alleged offence. On these grounds the proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein is liable to be quashed.
5. Accordingly petition is allowed. Proceedings in PCR No. 10181/2015 in C.C. No. 24310/2015 presently pending on the file of XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru are hereby quashed insofar as the present petitioner – accused No. 4 is concerned.
LRS.
Sd/- JUDGE.