AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.—Heard the counsel for the Petitioners.
Though notice has been served on the Respondent, nobody entered appearance.
The only ground urged in this application is that the Petitioners are not incharge and responsible for the affairs of the company and as such, the
complaint is not maintainable as against the Petitioners, namely 2nd and 3rd accused.
On going through the complaint, it is clear that there is specific allegation against the 1st Petitioner/2nd Accused with reference to his designation
in the Company. Therefore, I am unable to countenance the contention of the Counsel for the Petitioners. However, in regard to the 2nd
Petitioner/3rd accused, I am of the view that the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
According to the complaint, the cheques were issued by the Company bearing dates 16.12.1998 and 30.01.1999. The cheques were presented
and the same were dishonoured on 29.04.1999 and thereafter, complainant sent a notice on 6.5.1999. According to the 2nd Petitioner in his
petition, he retired from the first accused in his petition, he retired from the first Accused company on 21.3.1998 itself and as such, he was not in
charge for the affairs and is not responsible for the business of the company for having issued the cheque. The Form 32 produced by him clearly
show that the retirement of the 2nd Petitioner on 21.03.1998 has been intimated to the Registrar of Companies on 6.4.1998 itself.
Therefore, it is clear from the said document that 2nd Petitioner was not incharge and responsible for the affairs of the Company. Therefore, the
proceedings as against the 2nd Petitioner alone is quashed.
The trial court is directed to proceed with the Trial as against the 1st and 2nd accused and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.
The petition is disposed of on the above observation. Consequently, connected Crl.MP.''s are also closed.