AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Ananda
Heard the Learned counsel for petitioner.
The petitioners have sought for quashing the proceedings interalia contending that they had ceased to be the Directors of M/s. Future Metal Pvt. Ltd., when the cheques were issued by the Managing Director of said company.
The learned counsel for petitioners would submit that as the petitioners had resigned and ceased to be the Directors of said company, they cannot be prosecuted for an offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned counsel would submit there are no allegations in the complaint that the petitioners were incharge of day to day business of the company.
I have gone through the averments of complaint. In Para 14 and 15 of the complaint, it is stated thus:
The complainant submits that accused No. 2 to 8 herein arc the Directors of accused No. 1 as on 31.12.2008 and hence are arrayed as accused No. 2 to 8 in these proceedings. The complainant submits that as the accused No. 2 to 8 being the Directors of M/s. Future Metals Pvt. Ltd., had entered into Back to Back Contract for Merchandising Trade Contract, and had also provided the Deed of Personal and Corporate Guarantee to the complainant and are responsible for the debt/liability. The complainant submits that consequently accused No. 2 to 8 persons herein as Directors of accused No. 1 company have become liable for the amount due and payable to the complainant arising pursuance to the contracts (Documents No. 3 to 5) and amounts due pursuance to the Letters of Credit (Document No. 9 to 11) established and devolved.
The complainant submits that accused No. 2 to 8 being Directors of accused No. 1 company and having authorized the execution of Back to Back Contract for Merchandising Trade with complainant and further having also authorized the execution and providing the complainant with Deed of Personal and Corporate Guarantee being persons who at the time the offence was committed to be incharge of and responsible to the accused No. 1 company and for the conduct of the business of accused No. 1 company are liable to be proceeded against u/s 141 of the N.I. Act.
The law is well settled that while deciding a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the averments of complaint will have to be accepted on their face value.
In the instant case there are clear allegations that petitioners had offered personal guarantee for the credit facility availed by the said company from the complainant. The questions whether petitioners had ceased to be directors as on the date of issuance of cheques and cessation of petitioners as directors of company would absolve from the liability alleged in the complaint will have to be decided on merits of the case. Therefore, there are no grounds to quash the impugned proceedings. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.