Raipur, Chhattisgarh v. Satvinder Singh Bhatia S
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:2828 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1116 of 2018 1. Vimal Jain S/o Shri Maniklal Jain Aged About 55 Years Sough Avenue, Bungalow No. 22, Choubey Colony, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh Director of Vicon Automobiles (E) Pvt. Ltd. Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Director Vicon Automobiles (E) Pvt. Ltd. Ravi Bhavan, Jai Estambh Chowk, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, ... Petitioners versus Satvinder Singh Bhatia S/o Shri Mahender Singh Bhatia Aged About 33 Years R/o- Barpali Chowk, Champa, Tahsil-Champa, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent For Petitioners
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Narendra Mehar, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16.01.2025 1. 2. Heard Mr.Raza Ali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Narendra Mehar, learned counsel, appearing for respondent. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of CrPC for being aggrieved by the order dated 28.03.2018 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Champa, District – Janjgir-Champa, after PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.01.21 10:50:37 +0530 2 two years of registration of the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act vide order dated 27.08.2016, by allowing the application for amendment of the respondent/complaint has ordered for impleading petitioner No. 1 Vimal Jain, being one of the Directors of the company Vicon Automobiles (E) Pvt. Ltd. as one of the accused. 3. The prosecution story, in short, is that a complaint has been filed by the complainant Satvinder Singh Bhatia stating that the petitioner No.2 Vicon Automobiles India Pvt. Ltd. is into the business of selling of automobiles. It was averred that on 20.5.2016 the respondent/complainant had given Rs.8 lacs towards advance booking amount for purchase of a car from his account of Punjab National Bank, Sivni, Champa, Distt. Janjgir- Champa, which was credited in the account of petitioner company Vicon Automobiles India Pvt. Ltd. bearing account No.32288694978, IFS Code-SBIN0003577. The respondent/complainant further averred that on 16.5.2016 the petitioners had sent him a quotation of Toyota car, the on-road price of which was Rs.23,97,303/- and one approval letter was forwarded to him on 23.5.2016, which was prepared after receipt of the advance amount. However, even after expiry of the stipulated period of 45 days, the petitioner company did not provide him the vehicle and expressed its inability to provide him the vehicle. In order to discharge their liability, the petitioner company gave him a cheque bearing No.494288 dated 18.6.2018 of Rs.8 lacs of the Commercial Cooperative Limited Bank, Raipur. According to the respondent/complainant when the said cheque was present for encashment on 20.6.2016 before the Punjab National Bank, Sivni, Champa, Distt.Janjgir-Champa, it stood dishonoured and information about its dishonour was sent by the bank on 18.7.2016 to the complainant. The ground for dishonour of the cheque in question was stated to be insufÏciency of fund in the account. Thereafter, 3 on 20.7.2016 the respondent/complainant sent a demand notice to the petitioner company for refund of his advance booking amount of Rs.8 lacs within 15 days, which was issued by the post ofÏce on 22.7.2016, however, the accused persons refused to acknowledge the same. Hence, the respondent/complainant filed a complaint case along with all the relevant documents on 16.8.2016 before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Champa, Distt. Janjgir-Champa as the petitioner company despite receiving demand notice failed to return the cheque amount stated in the said notice. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Champa vide order dated 27.8.2016 registered the case against the petitioner company and its Director, without there being any mention of name of such Director in the complaint. Thereafter, summons were issued against the petitioner company and the accused persons were directed to remain present before the Court. After issuance of summons, the complainant filed an application on 28.3.2018 for including the name of petitioner Vimal Jain as Director in the complaint case as well as an application for hearing the matter urgently. The learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 28.3.2018, after more than two years of registration of offence, allowed the aforesaid application filed by the respondent/complainant, permitted the complainant to amend the complaint and implead petitioner Vimal Jain as accused in the capacity of Director of the Company. While allowing the said application, the learned trial Court issued production warrant for producing the petitioner Vimal Jain before the Court. Hence, against allowing of amendment in the complaint case and registration of offence against petitioner Vimal Jain, the present petition has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that learned trial Court has erred in facts as well as law while passing the impugned order 4 dated 28.03.2018. The cheque in question which was allegedly issued in discharge of the liability does not bear the signature of the petitioner Vimal Jain and as he is not the signatory of the cheque, and he cannot be held responsible for commission of the offence in question. The learned trial Court ought to have seen that there is no averment in the complaint that petitioner Vimal Jain, Director of the Company, was in charge of day to day conduct of the business of the company and as such was well aware of commission of the crime in question. The learned trial Court after taking cognizance of the offence under Section 148 of NI Act has proceeded against the petitioner Vimal Jain by impleading him as accused without examining any evidence or any witness or making any document as exhibit. Such an approach of the trial Court is bad in law and as such, not sustainable in the eye of law. He further submits that the petitioner along with one Vaibhav Jain are Directors of the Company Vicon Automobiles India Pvt. Ltd. which is evident from the web copy extracted from www.zaubacorp.com having signatory details and Directors details of the Company. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that petitioner Vimal Jain is neither signatory of the cheque in question nor is he Managing Director of the Company. The learned trial Court ought to have considered the fact that petitioner Vimal Jain cannot be impleaded merely on the ground of he being Director of the company. He cannot be held responsible in respect of a cheque that was issued on behalf of the company but he could be held liable only if it has been averred that he was responsible to the company for its day to day conduct of business. The learned trial Court after a lapse of more than two years, has added the petitioner Vimal Jain as accused without considering the fact that ingredients under Sections 138 as well as 141 of NI Act are not made out against him for registering the offence vide 5 impugned order dated 27.8.2016 as well as for adding his name as accused vide impugned order dated 28.3.2018. The learned trial Court ought to have also seen that from perusal of the documents it could not be manifested that the amount of Rs.8 lacs was given towards booking of a vehicle. Even as per proforma invoice quotation dated 16.5.2016, neither the terms and conditions have been fulfilled by the complainant for making him eligible for purchase of the car nor the invoice quotation has been given by the petitioner Vimal Jain. Hence, he prays that the impugned order may be set aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and supports the impugned judgment and order dated 28.03.2018 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Champa, District – Janjgir- Champa, after two years of registration of the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, by allowing the application for amendment of the respondent/complaint has ordered for impleading petitioner No. 1 Vimal Jain, being one of the Directors of the company Vicon Automobiles (E) Pvt. Ltd. as one of the accused. He further submits that the petitioners are the drawers of the amount of Rs.8,00,000 from the cheque. Thus, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order, therefore, the instant petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. From perusal of the documents available on record and from the order sheets of the trial Court, it transpires that the accused/petitioners 6 received Rs. 8,00,000/- from the complainant/respondent as an advance for vehicle sales, but instead of providing the vehicle, to repay the amount, they issued a cheque No. 494288 from Vyavsayik Sahakari Bank Limited, Rathpur (C.G.), account number 51000091793, signed by the Director of Vikon Auto Mobile India Pvt. Ltd, dated 18.06.2016. However, the said cheque bounced. Despite being informed of the bounced cheque, the accused/petitioners failed to make the payment within 15 days, thus, the accused/petitioners are guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act for the offence of dishonoring a cheque. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the orders of the trial Court, and further considering all the materials available on record, after applying mind, the learned JMFC Court after proper appreciation of the evidence available on record has rightly passed the impugned order dated 28.03.2018 and hence, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error which may call interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits, liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Preeti Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice