AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.A. Britto, J.—Heard Shri N. Sardessai, the Learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner. The Petitioner is an accused, and in these Writ Petitions filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Petitioner has challenged the Orders issuing process against her u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Three of the Orders were issued in the year 2004. Seven Orders were issued in 2005, and two Orders were issued in the year 2006.
The details are as follows:
WRIT PETITION
CASE NO.
DATE OF ISSUE OF PROCESS
38/2010
305/OA/NI/05/D
27-6-2005
39/2010
306/OA/NI/05/II
21-4-2005
40/2010
878/OA/NI/04/D
14-11-2005
41/2010
1238/OA/NI/04/I
25-1-2005
42/2010
120/OA/NI/06/E
23-1-2006
43/2010
1034/OA/NI/04/D
19-11-2004
44/2010
1002/OA/NI/05/D
05/04/06
45/2010
1240/OA/NI/04/D
06/04/05
46/2010
877/OA/NI/05/D
05/12/05
47/2010
103/OA/NI/04/I
06/02/04
48/2010
304/OA/NI/05/D
14-9-2005
49/2010
1035/OA/NI/04/D
22-12-2004
Shri Sardessai, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was one of the two Directors of accused no.1/M/s.Rajnil Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. The other Director, namely accused no.2 was her husband who had signed the subject cheques, and the Petitioner was accused no.3. Learned Counsel submits that the Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482 of the Code because of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Saroj Kumar Rodal dated 16-1-2007 reported in (2007 (6) SCC 363) which makes the position of law clear that there must be averments in the complaint to the effect that the Director sought to be prosecuted was responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company. Learned Counsel submits that there is no limitation prescribed for invoking Section 482 of the Code. Learned Counsel submits that in case these petitions succeed no prejudice is going to be caused to the Complainant who can proceed against the Company and other Director. The Order issuing process is revisable. Powers of revision have been concurrently conferred on the Court of Sessions and this Court. The Learned Counsel has not been able to point out as to why the Petitioner/Accused did not pursue her ordinary remedies against the said Orders issuing process against her and had to wait to have recourse to extraordinary remedy. The Petitioner could have approached the Court of Sessions or this Court in revisional jurisdiction. To invoke revisional jurisdiction a time limit is laid down. A party ought not be allowed to sleep over his or her rights and then invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court because no limitation is provided.
The Judgment in Saroj Kumar(supra) follows the Judgment of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla and Another, which clearly states that it is necessary to aver in the complaint that at the time of the commission of the offence the accused was in charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company, and without this averment in the complaint the requirement of Section 141 cannot be said to be satisfied. Therefore, if at all, the law was unclear before, it is clear, at least for the last five years. Saroj Kumar(supra) therefore can give no cause to the Petitioner to approach the Court, five years later.
The Petitioner had the remedy of correcting the Orders issuing process against her, assuming that they were incorrect, by way of filing revision application. The inherent power u/s 482 of the Code should be exercised sparingly and in rare cases. The Apex Court in Hamida v. Rashid @ Rasheed & others(2007 AIR SCW 3123) has reiterated that inherent power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code or in other enactment for redressal of the aggrieved party. The Petitioner had revisional jurisdiction to invoke the Court of Sessions or this Court to redress her grievance which for reasons best known to the Petitioner, the Petitioner has chosen not to invoke.
Considering that, in my opinion, there is nothing special or extraordinary in the cases of the Petitioner for this Court to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code. Criminal Writ Petitions are therefore hereby dismissed, in limine.